Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.381 of 2011
BETWEEN
SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR, No.119, 9TH MAIN, ARASAPPA COMPLEX, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 98. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED IN ITA No.1190/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA No.1190/BANG/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
The appeal was admitted to consider the following three substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty when the Learned Respondent has
failed to give a clear finding as to whether the Appellant is guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty when the Learned Respondent has failed to record his satisfaction of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order?”
It is submitted that the second and third substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. MANJUNATH COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565. Hence, following the said judgment, the second and third questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
In view of holding the second and third substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee, the first substantial question of law would not arise for consideration. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
SD/-
SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE