Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
ITA NO.270/2016 C/W ITA NOS.271-273/2016
BETWEEN:
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS
(COMMON) (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
SRI NARASIMHA REDDY NO.716, 19TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-II, BANGALORE-560 034 PAN NO.ADAPR5681D
...RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
ITA NO.270/16 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER
DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1013/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06.
ITA NO.271/16 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1014/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.
ITA NO.272/16 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1015/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08.
ITA NO.273/16 IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1016/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.
THESE ITAs. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In all matters, there are office objections. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the matters are covered by the decision of this Court
against the Revenue. Hence, we find it appropriate to take up the matters.
All the appeals are preferred by the appellants- Revenue by raising the following questions of law:
“Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) overlooking the provisions of the Act and even when all the ingredients are satisfied for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in the case of assessee?”
Heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue.
Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the Tribunal in its impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT and another –vs- Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (kar) wherein the question is answered against the Revenue.
In our view, when the matter has already covered by the decision of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeals, office objections do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE