Ita/220/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Smt Latha Ramachandra Inamdar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATLBD THIS THE DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2015 PRESENT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN| AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR| ITA No.220/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THERE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD. BANGALORE oDTHE DBPUTY COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -5(1) UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXE MISSION ROAD|BANGALORE — 560 027..~ APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND A/W SRI G KAMALADHAR, ADVs.) AN]: SMT.LATHA RAMACHANDRA INAMDAR.PROP: TRUPTI NURSING HOMENo.463, | BLOCK, UI STAGE.BASAVESWARANAGARBANGALORE-560 079.PAN:-AACPI 2319C.RESPONDENT THIS JTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF.INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)30.12.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1048/BANG/2014 FOR THE|ASSESSMENT YBAR 2008-2009 PRAYING TO FBFORMULATTHE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE|AND TO ALLOW THR APPBKEAL AND SET ASIDE THORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITANO.1048/BANG/2014 DATED 30.12.2014 AND CONFIRM THEORDER.OR.THE.APPELLATECOMMISSIONERCONFIRMING THR ORDER PASSED BY THER DEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROR.INCOME,TAX,CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS|DAY,VINEET SARAN,, J.,DELIVERED THER FOLLOWING- Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants andperused the record. 2This appeal has been filed against the order of theTribunal, whereby the Tribunal has held that while issuing noticeimposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, itwould be necessary to specify 1n the notice as to whether the assesseehas concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccuratepatticulars of such income. In the absence of Assessing Officer,recording the specific ground on which the notice was being issued, penalty cannot be imposed, as has been held by the Division Bench ofthis Court in the case ofCommussioner ofIncome Tax & Anr, -vs- Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factoryreported in (2013) 92)DTR 0111 (Kar).In paragraph-61 of the said judgment, it has beenheld as under: “61. Lhe Assessing Officer 1s empowered under the Actto initiate penalty proceeaings once he 1s satisfied in thecourse of any proceedings that there ts concealment ofincome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of totalincome under clause (c). Concealment, furnishinginaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus theassessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to theconclusion that whether 1s it a case of concealment ofincome or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurateparticulars. Lhe Apex Court in the case ofAshok Patreported in 292 IIR 171 at page 19 has held thatconcealment of income and furnishing inaccurateparticulars of income carry different connotations. LheGujrat High Court in the case of MANUENGINEERING reported in 122 IIR 306 and theDelhi High Court in the case of VIRGOMARKETING reported in 171 Laxmn 156, has heldthat levy ofpenalty has to be clear as to the limbfor whichit 1s levied and the position being unclear penalty 1s notsustainable. Lherefore, when the Assessing Officerproposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then|the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the caseforfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Lhestandardproforma without striking ofthe relevant clauseswill lead to an inference as to non-application ofmind.” In view of the above, we do not find that any substantial) question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this coutt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bkm Sd/-. JUDGE Sd/-| JUDGE