Ita/358/2010 Of Smt G Nirmala Devi v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 14 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.358 OF JZOL BEI|WEEN: SMT. G. NIRMALA DEVI|G-1, EDEN AULAC APARTMENTS,OLD MADRAS ROAD,INDIRA NAGAR,|BANGALORE. — APPELLANT| (BY SRI A. SHANKAR & SRI M, LAVA, ADVOCATES) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2),C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE. ~.., RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS. FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONSOF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND|SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE!APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN|I.T.A. NO.833/BANG/2009 DATED 14-5-2010. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR.HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant is an individual. A search under|Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the|Act’) was conducted in the case of the appellant’s|nusband. Documents were seized. Appellant was servedwith a notice under Section 153C read witn Section 153A|of the Act. In response to the notice, the appellant fileda return of income. Subsequently, a notice under|Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued. The}seized material indicated that the appellant made ansadvance of Rs.30,00,000/-. The source was explained.The Assessing Officer being satisfied of the source to an| extent of Rs.12,00,000/- and balance of Rs.18,00,000/-.added to the income of the appellant under Section 69 of tne Act. Tnereafter, a snow-cause notice was issued as.to why penalty snould not be imposed. A reply was|furnished. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of.Rs.6,98,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was.preferred before the Commissioner of Income _ Ta(Appeals) VI, Bengaluru. Tne appeal was allowed.Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the same andreversed the finding of Commissioner of Income Tax. |Hence, the present appeal. 2. By the order dated 28-6-2011, the appeal wasadmitted to consider the following substantial questions| of law; Whetner the Tribunal was justified in|law in confirming tne penalty of|Rs.5,95,400/- levied under Section.2/1(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,|1961, on the facts and circumstance ofthe case?law in confirming tne penalty of|Rs.5,95,400/- levied under Section.2/1(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,|1961, on the facts and circumstance ofthe case? |Whether the Tribunal was Justified in|law in nolding that tne Assessing|Officer Nas recorded the satisfaction|for initiating the penalty proceedings|on the facts and circumstance of the|Case?|law in nolding that tne Assessing|Officer Nas recorded the satisfaction|for initiating the penalty proceedings|on the facts and circumstance of the|Case?| I.Whether the Tribunal was Justified in|law in nolding that the appellant nas|concealed the particulars of income or furnisnedgInaccurateparticularsOf|Income on the facts and circumstance|of the case?law in nolding that the appellant nas|concealed the particulars of income or furnisnedgInaccurateparticularsOf|Income on the facts and circumstance|of the case? 3 #|cLearned counsels submit that the aforesaid substantial questions of law would not. arise forconsideration. They nave advanced arguments on the| Same. They plead tnat the appeal requires to be.considered and heard on the _ following substantiaquestion of law; “Whether the levy of penalty under.section.2/1(1)(C)|oftheActIS|sustainable In law whnen the noticeissued unaer section 274 of the Act bythe assessing officer does not indicate| the specific ground for initiation. ofpenalty proceedings and is thus not in|accordance witn tne provisions of taw|on the facts and circumstances of the|case?”| 3 #|cLearned counsels submit that the aforesaid substantial questions of law would not. arise forconsideration. They nave advanced arguments on the| Same. They plead tnat the appeal requires to be.considered and heard on the _ following substantiaquestion of law; “Whether the levy of penalty under.section.2/1(1)(C)|oftheActIS|sustainable In law whnen the noticeissued unaer section 274 of the Act bythe assessing officer does not indicate| the specific ground for initiation. ofpenalty proceedings and is thus not in|accordance witn tne provisions of taw|on the facts and circumstances of the|case?”| 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that|the said substantial question of law is covered py tne|judgmentOT|tnis|Court|In.tne|CdSCofTHECOMMISSIONER OF [INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VMANJIUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTOR~—1(2013)S59 ITR 565]. Following the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the|substantial question of law is answered in favour of tne|assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is,|accordingly, disposed off. | SD/-JUDGE| SD/-|JUDGE