Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.170 TO 175 OF 2010 BETWEEN:
SRI S.P.PRASAD NO.408, 7TH CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 071. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH M.LAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.1001
2 TO 1006/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00 AND 2001-2002 TO 2005-06, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1001 TO 1006/BNG/2009, DATED 29.01.2010.
***** THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 19-10-2010 to consider the following substantial questions of law:-
“1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings on the facts and circumstance of the case ?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.43,500/- for the assessment year 1999-00, Rs.12,000/- for the assessment year 2001-02, Rs.7,000/- for the assessment year 2002-03,
3 Rs.1,05,500/- for the assessment year 2003- 04, Rs.1,68,500/- for the assessment year 2004-05 and Rs.5,72,000/- for the assessment year 2005-06 on the facts and circumstance of the case ?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income on the facts and circumstance of the case?” The learned counsel submits that the questions of law requires to be re-framed. Hence, we have heard the learned counsels on the same. On hearing learned counsels, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration in these appeals:- “Whether the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is valid and sustainable in law?” Learned counsels have addressed their arguments on the above question of law. We have heard learned counsels. It
4 is contended that the substantial question of law is covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER v. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHERS reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565, wherein the said question of law was held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It was held that the notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state with regard to the concealment or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. In view of the answer to the substantial question of law the appeal is disposed off. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the assessing authority is set aside for all the relevant years.
SD/- SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE
Rsk/-