THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT DEEPIKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/692/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01038797201711 October 2018Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's findings of no concealment, leading to the setting aside of the penalty, did not raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside a penalty imposed on the assessee. The High Court noted that a related appeal concerning the same common order had already been dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's finding of no concealment, leading to the cancellation of penalty, presents a substantial question of law for the High Court to consider under Section 260-A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.692/2017

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.692 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A)

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

WARD-5(3), PRESENT ADDRESS

WARD-2(2)(4)

2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA

BENGALURU – 560 095. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. DEEPIKA C/o M/s. T M MARKETING (INDIA) 12, GROUND FLOOR, TULSI PLAZA S.V. LANE, 3RD CROSS, CHICKPET BENGALURU – 560 053. PAN: ANNPD1194Q ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) ---

I.T.A.No.692/2017

- 2 - THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.03.2017, PASSED IN ITA NO.1590/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1590/BANG/2014 DATED 09.03.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(4), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants has frankly pointed out that the other co-related appeal, being ITA No.695/2017 against the common order dated 09.03.2017 in relation to ITA No.1618/Bang/2014, has been considered and dismissed by this Court on 21.06.2018. In the said judgment, this Court has, inter alia, held as under: “3. In view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal found that there was no concealment on the part of the Assessee, attracting penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act. Such cogent and reasonable findings of facts by the learned Tribunal and consequentially set aside the penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act does not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring consideration by this Court under Section 260-A of the Act.

I.T.A.No.692/2017

- 3 - 4. The Appeal filed by the Revenue is thus found to be without merit and liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

The consideration aforesaid directly applies to the present appeal too filed in relation to ITA No.1590/Bang/2014 against the common order dated 09.03.2017.

Therefore, following the decision aforesaid and in the same terms, this appeal also stands dismissed.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →