SSA Emerald Penalty 271 1 C

ITEM NO.
12
COURT NO.2
SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I N D I A
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2016

(CC No.11485/2016)
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/11/2015
in ITA No. 380/2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangaluru)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS
Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
Date : 05/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv.

Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv.
For Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
We do not find any merit in this petition.
The
special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Anita Malhotra)
Court Master
(Sneh Bala Mehra)

Assistant Registrar
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2016.08.05
16:52:33 IST
Reason:
http://www.itatonline.org
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
I.T.A. NO. 380 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
2.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD-6 (3),
BANGALORE
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND
M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS,
GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
BAGALUR POST JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 562 157,
PAN:AAACQ369B
... RESPONDENT
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF
LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE
FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND
-2-
SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31/03/2015

PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 433/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2009-10, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, VINEET
SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the
appellants and perused the record.
2.
This appeal has been filed raising the
following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to
explicitly
proceedings
mention
are
that
being
penalty
initiated
for
furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that

for concealment of income makes the
penalty order liable for cancellation even
when
it
has
been
proved
beyond
reasonable doubt that the assessee had

concealed
income
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case?
-3-
(2) Whether,
on
the
facts
and
in
the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

was justified in law in holding that the
penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s.
271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite
the amendment of Section 271(1B) with
retrospective effect and by virtue of the
amendment, the assessing officer has
initiated the penalty by properly recording
the satisfaction for the same?
(3) Whether
on
the
facts
and
in
the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

was justified in deciding the appeals
against the Revenue on the basis of notice
issued under Section 274 without taking
into consideration the assessment order
when the assessing officer has specified
that
the
assessee
has
concealed
particulars of income?
3.
The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by
the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing

Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) to be bad
-4-
in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been
initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of
income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of
income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the
assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division
Bench
of
this
Court
rendered
in
the
case
of
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON

AND
GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.
4.
In our view, since the matter is covered by
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of

the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this
appeal for determination by this Court.
The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Rd/-

SSA Emerald Penalty 271 1 C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSA Emerald Penalty 271 1 C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSA Emerald Penalty 271 1 C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ITEM NO.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2016

Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv.

special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sneh Bala Mehra)

Signature Not Verified

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

(BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, ADV.)

SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31/03/2015

This appeal has been filed raising the

following substantial questions of law:

furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that

reasonable doubt that the assessee had

circumstances of the case?

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by

the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing

in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON

GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.

In our view, since the matter is covered by

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of

You might also like