Tax And Another v. Manjunatha Cotton And.ginning Factory (2013) 359 Itr 565

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND| THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN | INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.143 OF JOLI BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXC. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD|BENGALURU,C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD|BENGALURU, 2).THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD|BENGALURU,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD|BENGALURU, _.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND= M/S. GAURI GANESH REAL ESTATE.NO.628 OF 2, II FLOOR, I MAIN-11 CROSS, I STAGE, INDIRANAGAR_BENGALURU, ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: A.SSHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONGWITHSRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE)SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS|INCOMETAXAPPEAL|ISFILEDUNDER|SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING|OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.12.2010 PASSED IN INCOME.TAX APPEAL NO.821/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT|YEAR2005-2006,PRAYING TOFORMULATETHE|SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN;|ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED|BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURUIN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.821/BANG/2009 DATED.06.17.7010 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE.COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY.|THEASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF|INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF|JUSTICE AND EQUITY KOK AR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINALHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE.FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 30.01.2012 to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the appellate Tribunal wasrigntIntakingtheVIeCWtheteCVeTyconcealment or furnishing of inadequate|particulars of income will not necessarily|attract penaity and tnerefore set aside levy ofpenalty in respect of the assessee for the|assessment year 2005-06, even witnout| recording a finding as to what are the|exoneratingcircumstanceand.without reference to tne statutory provisions viz., oneor otner of the explanations 1 to 7 of Section2/1(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2.Tne.jearned|CounselsuDmMiIttnat|tnequestions of law requires to be re-framed. They haveaddressed the arguments on the same. Hence, the.question of law is re-framed and the following substantialquestion of law is framed for consideration in this appeal. | “Whether the levy of penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act is sustainable inlaw when the notice issued under Section 7/¢4of the Act by the Assessing Officer does not|indicate the specific ground for initiation ofpenalty proceedings and is thus not in|accordance with the provisions of law on the|fact and circumstances of the case?” ‘3.Tne.jearnedCounse|lcontendstnat|tnesubstantial question of law is covered by the judgment of|this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME| TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND.GINNING FACTORY |(2013) 359 ITR 565]. 4Following the aforesaid judgment of this Court,the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the)assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is)accordingly, dismissed. Penalty order for the assessment,years 2004-05 and 2005-06, are set aside. Sd/- |JUDGE *pgn/-— Sd/-JUDGE