SRI. M. SHANTHA KUMAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR

W.A.NOS.1624-1625/2013(T-IT)

BETWEEN

SRI. M. SHANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA PROPRIETOR M/S SATYA HOSPITAL NO.1, 1933/1, 1934 KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 084

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY, ADV.,)

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAX-II, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1) MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,)

2 THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.2176 AND 11524/2012(T-IT DATED 26/11/2012.

THESE W.As. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

These appeals are directed against the order dated 26.11.12 passed in W.P.Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

We have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge and we find that learned Judge after referring/reproducing the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer and so also by the revisional authority in the concluding paragraph 9, observed thus:

“As could be seen from the reasonings in the four orders referred to above, the petitioner had produced fabricated evidence

3 to evade payment of legitimate taxes. I find no legal infirmity in the factual findings recorded by the authorities in the four orders referred to above to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, a very lenient view is taken by the Appellate Authority in reducing the penalty from 300% to 100%. The writ petitions are totally devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). I have imposed exemplary costs for the reason that the petitioner had put forward a totally false and a fabricated claim for deduction. The petitioner shall pay the aforesaid costs to the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

The only contention urged before us by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the evidence placed on record by the appellant before the revisional authority was not appreciated in proper perspective. It appears that the appellant could not and did not produce

4 any evidence in support of the expenditure before the Assessing Officer. The appellant instead of filing appeal, chose to file revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore II, Bangalore. The Commissioner, allowed the appellant to produce the materials/evidence in support of the alleged expenditure incurred for improvement/development of the land sold by the appellant. After having gone through the entire materials/evidence, the revisional authority held that all the documents produced by the appellant in support of his case are fabricated. Spot inspection was also conducted by the revisional authority and it was found that the claim of the appellant in respect of the development/improvement of the land was not genuine. Having considered the entire material, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by imposing exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. We have also independently perused the order passed by the AO, in particular, the reasoning part thereof and so also the order

5 passed by the Revisional Authority and we do not find any error whatsoever in appreciation of the evidence by these authorities. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which does not warrant interference by this Court in these appeals. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE TL

SRI. M. SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX