Tax And Another v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THE 8& DAY OF JANUARY, 2016) “PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA 1T.A.NO. 107 OF 2010} Between: 1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle, C.R. Building,Central Circle, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2.The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-12(1), RP Bhavan, 4[th]Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore. ..Appellants (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate) And M/s. Maini Abrasives Pvt. Ltd.,Devatha Plaza, 6[th]Floor,131, Residency Road, Bangalore-560 O25. ... Respondent (By Sri. A. Shankar, Advocate) KKK This ITA is filed U/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, praying to formulate the substantial question of law, ©allow the appeal and set aside the Order passed by the|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No.|093/Bang/2009 dated 30/10/2009 and confirm the order)of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed| by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1),Bangalore. | ThisITA|comingOT)for.Admission,this|day,N.K.PATIL J, delivered the following: °-JU DGMEN T: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of theimpugned order dated 30/10/2009, passed in ITA No.993/Bang/2009, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore|Bench,Bangalore, forconsideringthe.following substantial questions of law: (ij) Whether the Tribunal was correct in|setting-aside the order of penalty levied u/s. 271 (1)(C) of the Act without appreciating the facts|and circumstances arising in the case nor the)legal position and consequently recorded aperverse finding? (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the affidavits of two parties filed before the|Appellate Commissioner in penalty proceeding|would establish that the assessee was carryingon the business in the said premises and the)failureTO permitcross-examination|oT|thelandlord whose evidence had been relied on and|having failed to give proper opportunity to)establish the purchases would entitle the setting-aside of the penalty proceedings? 2. We have heard learned counsel tor theappellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, atthe outset submitted that, the subject matter involvedin this case is directly covered by the judgment passedby the Division Bench of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income -Tax and another Vs.Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and othersreported in(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka)Therefore, he submitted that, following the saidjudgment and for the reasons stated therein, this appealmay also be dismissed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for theappellants has fairly submitted that, in the light of thesubmission made by learned counsel appearing forrespondent and following the judgment passed by theDivision Bench of this Court as stated supra, thisappeal may be dismissed. o. The above submission made by learned counsel for both the parties is placed on record. 6. The instant appeal filed by the appellants isdismissed, following the judgment of the Division Benchof this Court in the case otCommissioner of Income — Tax and another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and others.reported in.(2013) 359 ITR S65.(Karnataka)and for the reasons stated therein. No|costs. SD/-JUDGESD/-JUDGEtsn*