THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. SMT. DEEPIKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/695/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01040648201721 June 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal found no concealment of income on the part of the assessee, thus setting aside the penalty. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, stating they did not raise substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order that set aside a penalty imposed on the assessee. The penalty was levied on an addition made to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the assessee offered a bona fide explanation and there was no material to show concealment of income.

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

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

I.T.A. No.695/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3), PRESENT ADDRESS, WARD-2(2)(4), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)

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.

…RESPONDENT

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.1618/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE

Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.695/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) & another Vs. Smt.Deepika

2/5

THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1618/BANG/2014 DATED 09.03.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(4), BENGALURU & ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Mr. K.V.Aravind, Adv. for Appellants - Revenue

This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short], raising certain alleged substantial question of law arising from the Order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9.3.2017 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1618/Bang/2014 in ‘The ITO v. Smt. Deepika’ for Assessment Year 2009-10, setting aside the penalty imposed on the Respondent-Assessee by the Assessing Authority.

Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.695/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) & another Vs. Smt.Deepika

3/5

2.

Learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and Others’ [2013] 359 ITR 565 [Karnataka], wherein it is held as under: “Held accordingly, dismissing the appeals, (i) that merely because the assessee agreed to the addition and the assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition, when the assessee had paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income, it could not be inferred that the addition was on account of concealment. Moreover, the assessee had offered an explanation. The explanation was not found to be false. On the contrary, it was held to be bona fide. The cancellation of penalty by the Tribunal was justified.

(ii) That the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire penalty proceedings were vitiated on

Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.695/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) & another Vs. Smt.Deepika

4/5

the ground that the notice issued was not in accordance with law. (iii) That the subject matter of the penalty proceedings was the order of the appellate authority and not the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the order of penalty by the Assessing Officer was not valid. (iv) That when two fact finding authorities were satisfied that the explanation offered by the assessee was not false and it was a bona fide though the assessee had failed to conclusively prove the explanation the levy of penalty was not justified.”

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.

Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.695/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A) & another Vs. Smt.Deepika

5/5

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.

Copy of this Order shall be sent to the Respondent-Assessee.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-

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 →