Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA
ITA NO.112/2010 BETWEEN
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Central Circle
C R Building, Queens Road
Bangalore.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax
Circle-12(1)
RP Bhavan, 4TH Floor
Nrupathunga Road Bangalore.
…..Appellants
(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)
AND
M/s. Maini Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. Devatha Plaza, 6TH Floor 131, Residency Road Bangalore-560 025. ….Respondent
(By Sri.A. Shankar and M. Lava, Advocates)
This Appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income-tax Act 1961, to set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.591/BNG/2009, dated 30.10.2009, and confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirm the order passed by the
2 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.
This Appeal coming on for Hearing this day, N.K. Patil. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.591/Bang/2009 and confirm the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore in respect of the assessment year 2003-04, to consider the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting-aside the order of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances arising in the case nor the legal position and consequently recorded a perverse finding?
(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the affidavits of two parties filed before the Appellate Commissioner in penalty proceeding would establish that the assessee was carrying on the business in the said premises and the
3 failure to permit cross-examination of the landlord whose evidence had been relied on and having failed to give proper opportunity to establish the purchases would entitle the setting-aside of the penalty proceedings?
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for both the parties at the outset submit that the questions involved in this appeals are squarely covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in ITA 107/10 disposed of on 08.01.2016 (The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Maini Abrasives P.Ltd.). Therefore, they submit following the said Judgment, the instant appeal may also be disposed of.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the parties is placed on record.
This appeal is dismissed following the Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in ITA
4 107/10 disposed of on 08.01.2016 (The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Maini Abrasives P.Ltd.).
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
brn