CIT v. Babu Reddy

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Shri Masthi Gowda P, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income- Purada Koppalu Village, tax, Bengaluru-3. Manday Tq, Mandya-571 416. PAN – AHFPG 2134 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PC…

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Shri Manjunatha, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income- No.2213, Basavanagudi Road, tax, Bengaluru. KR Pet Town-571426. PAN – AIDPM 4082 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangaluru-3…

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

…Ld. Principal CIT also noticed that the A.O. has dropped the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271A of the Act accepting the decision cited by the assessee, viz., decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Babu Reddy (2010) 38 DTR 147 (KAR). The Ld PCIT took the view that the decision rendered in the case of Babu Reddy (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the case of Baby Reddy (supra), the said assessee was maintaining books of account. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT took the view that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicia…

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

…Ld. Principal CIT also noticed that the A.O. has dropped the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271A of the Act accepting the decision cited by the assessee, viz., decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Babu Reddy (2010) 38 DTR 147 (KAR). The Ld PCIT took the view that the decision rendered in the case of Babu Reddy (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the case of Baby Reddy (supra), the said assessee was maintaining books of account. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT took the view that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicia…

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

…Ld. Principal CIT also noticed that the A.O. has dropped the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271A of the Act accepting the decision cited by the assessee, viz., decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Babu Reddy (2010) 38 DTR 147 (KAR). The Ld PCIT took the view that the decision rendered in the case of Babu Reddy (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the case of Baby Reddy (supra), the said assessee was maintaining books of account. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT took the view that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicia…

Harshavardhan, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

…l followed several other tribunal orders rendered by Chandigarh Bench of the tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Construction Co. etc. The tribunal also followed a Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Babu Reddy as reported in 38 DTR 147 in which it was held that since no format of books of accounts were prescribed under the Rules for Civil Contracts, Penalty u/s 271A is not justified. He submitted that when no penalty u/s 271A is leviable, Penalty u/s 271B also cannot be levied for non-audit as prescribed u/s 44AB. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the lower autho…