Ita/575/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri V N Sridhar

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2014. PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK N. KUMAR AN D THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEK B.MANOHAR INCOME TAX APPBAL NO.575 OF 2008 BBRTW BB 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF | INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE "2. THRE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE ... APPBKRLLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI V.N.SRIDHAR NO.30, MAHANTA LAYOUTOFF BULL TKMPLE ROADBANGALORE —. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADVOCATE) THIS INCOMB TAX APPKAL [IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT)OF|ORDERDATED18.1.2008|PASSEDIN-ITA|NO.150/BANG/2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL|QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW|THR APPBAL AND SKHKT ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BTHE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.150/BANG/2007 DATED18.11.2008 CONFIRMING THR ORDER OF THR APPBKRLLACOMMISSIONBR AND CONFIRM THR ORDER PASSED BYTHRASSISTANTCOMMISSIONBROFINCOME|TAX,|CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-. JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was admitted on 26.11.2010 to consider the following substantialquestions of law: (ij) Whether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that the penalty levied|correct in holding that the penalty levied| by the Assessing Officer under section| 2/1(1)(c) of the Act, is not sustainable in law in respect of an amount shown as|gilt received in the original return, which|was found to be incorrect as per materiallaw in respect of an amount shown as|gilt received in the original return, which|was found to be incorrect as per material detected in the search and was theundisclosed income oft the assessee? (11) Whether the Appellate Authorities were|correct in deleting the penalty levied astheAaASsSSECfiled revisedreturn|declaring part of searched income inorder to buy peace with the departmentso that penalty will not be levied byrelying on the judgment of the ApexCourt in 251 ITA 9 confirming thejudgment of M.P.High Court in 241 ITR124 which was applicable to assessmentyear 1983-84 to 1986-87 based on thelaw declared by Apex Court in 168 ITR705, which is held to be not good lawafter insertion of Explanation to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Apex Court in251 ITA 99? oD In a batch of appeals in which the presentrespondent was also a party, the same questions wereraised in Income Tax Appeal No.513/2008 with other connected matters, wherein, by a detailed order the saidsubstantial questions of law were answered in favour ofassessee and against the Revenue. Following the aforestated judgment, these questions of law are alsoanswered in favour of assessee and against theRevenue. | Ordered accordingly. — AHB Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE