Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
:PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
I.T.A.NO. 107 OF 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, Advocate) *** This ITA is filed U/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to formulate the substantial question of law, allow the appeal and set aside the Order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 593/Bang/2009 dated 30/10/2009 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for Admission, this day, N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the impugned order dated 30/10/2009, passed in ITA No. 593/Bang/2009, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, for considering the following substantial questions of law: (i) 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?
(ii) 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 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 learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, at the outset submitted that, the subject matter involved in this case is directly covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income –Tax and another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and others reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka). Therefore, he submitted that, following the said judgment and for the reasons stated therein, this appeal may also be dismissed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that, in the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent and following the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, this appeal may be dismissed.
The above submission made by learned counsel for both the parties is placed on record. 6. The instant appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income – Tax and another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and others reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) and for the reasons stated therein. No costs. SD/- JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE tsn*