The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered Against The Revenue By Decision Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory[2]. His Submission Is Placed On Record

Digitally signedby ANUSHA VLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A) CENTRAL CIRCLE C.R.BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) C.R.BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: SHRI. HARSHVARDHAN NO.168/B, GROUND FLOOR 6 B CROSS, 1 N BLOCK NEAR SAGAR FAST FOOD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 PAN-AJHPM 1729J …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED PASSED IN ITA NO.412/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 29.01.2020 2011-2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 412/BANG/2019 DATED 29.01.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 ANNEXURE-E AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated January 29, 2020 in ITA No.412/Bang/2019 passed by the ITAT[1], Bengaluru, for A.Y.2011-12 has been admitted to consider following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case by holding that notice issued for levy of penalty does not specifically mention the ground that is it for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without appreciating that Tribunal ought to have seen that as the case involves both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty proceedings were rightly 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal initiated by issuing notice as prescribed in section271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act by holding that the Rules does not prescribe list of books of accounts to be maintained by a Civil Contractor when the assessee had failed to maintain accounts and get it audited as required under section 44AB of the Act and Tribunal failed to notice that assessee admitted in the return of income filed subsequent to the issue of notice under section 153A of the Act regarding sale receipts? 2. Heard Shri Sushal Tiwari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Shri S.Annamalai, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee. 3. Shri Tiwari, in his usual fairness, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered against the Revenue by decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory[2]. His submission is placed on record. 2 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) 4. In the circumstance, the following; ORDER (i)Appeal is dismissed; and (ii)Questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. of assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE