PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI NARASIMHA REDDY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/270/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01031358201628 June 2016Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the matter was already covered by a previous decision of the same Court against the Revenue, no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue raised a question of law regarding the validity of the penalty cancellation.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the ingredients for its levy were satisfied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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.

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:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

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.

2.

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?”

3.

Heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue.

4.

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.

5.

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

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 →