M/s. Tulasiram Enterprises, Bangalore V. Income-tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 1293/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9365 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA
• Assessee Lawyers: H GURUSWAMY ITP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1293(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 11) M/S TULASIRAM ENTERPRISES, 240D, SAIDEEP 2 ND B MAIN, 2 ND D CROSS, KAPILA ROAD, 1 ST PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE 560085 PAN : AACFT7668M APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD 4 (4), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H. GURUSWAMY, ITP REVENUE BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) - 7 BENGALURU DATED 20.06.2016 F OR A. Y. 2010 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS BU T THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT PENALTY OF RS. 76,585/- IM POSED U/S 271 (1) (C) OF I. T. ACT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A. O. IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM U/S 271 AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 24 OF TH E APPEAL MEMO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA NO. 1293BANG) 2016 2 THEREAFTER HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE AS NOTED ABOVE AND AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (S UPRA), THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND APPROVED BY CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE PENALTY IS CANCELLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO. 1293BANG) 2016 3 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DA TE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEM ENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER