Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
ITA NO.276/2015
BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, MYSORE-570008.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. E I SANMATHI, ADV., )
AND:
SRI. S.K. SRINIVASA NO.1, ‘A’ BLOCK, BEHIND AISHWARYA PETROL BUNK, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE, MYSORE PAN NO.AHQPS3208P ... RESPONDENT
This ITA / Income Tax Appeal is filed Under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated:10/12/2014 passed in ITA No.390/Bang/2014, for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 with a prayer to decide the foregoing question of law and / or such other questions of law as may be formulated by the Hon'ble Court as deemed fit and set aside the appellate order dated: 10/12/2014 passed by the ITAT, 'A' Bench, Bangalore, in appeal proceedings in ITA No.390/Bang/2014 for assessment year 2005-06, as sought for in this appeal; and to grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question 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?”
The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565.
In our view, since the matter is covered by the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE TL