Ita/381/2011 Of Smt. Gurusharan Kaur v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 19 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN) INCOME TAX APPEAL No.381 of ZOL1 BEI|WEE SMT. GURUSHARAN KAUR,No.119, 9 MAIN, |ARASAPPA COMPLEX,IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,BANGALORE - 98. .., APPELLAN |] (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE) ANI THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1),BENGALURU. .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THISINCOME|TAX.APPEAL|ISFILED|UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISINGOUT OF ORDER DATED 22/06/2011 PASSED IN ITA.No.1190/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006,PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE|APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2011.PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA No.1190/BANG/2010, IN THE.INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE.FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard. 2.|The appeal was admitted to consider the following three substantial questions of law: aWhetherOf)thefactsandIn|thecircumstances of the case, the Honourable|Tribunal was rignt in law in upnolding tne levy|of penaity under section 271 (1) (c) of IncomeTax Act, 1961? 2 |WhetherOf)thefactsandIn|thecircumstances of the case, the Honourable|Tribunal was right in taw in upnolding levy ofpenaity wnen tne Learned Respondent has| failed to give a clear finding as to whether the|Appellant is guilty of conceaiment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such|Income? 3.|WhetherOf)thefactsandIn|thecircumstances of the case, the Honourable|Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of|penaity wnen tne Learned Respondent has|failed to record his satisfaction of concealment.or furnishing inaccurate particulars in tne}assessment order?” 3.It is submitted tnat the second and third substantia]questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court|in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND|ANOTHER|VS,|MANJIUNATHCOTTONAND|GINNINGFACTORY reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565. Hence,following the said judgment, the second and _ thirquestions of law are answered in favour of the assessee|and against the Revenue. AnIn view of holding the second and third substantialquestions of law in favour of the assessee, the first|substantialquestion.oflawWOUICNotariseforconsideration. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. SD/-JUDGE | MV| SD/-|JUDGE