PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 V. M/S SHOBHA SPACE (P) LTD

ITA/686/2015

AI Insights

The case involves two income tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s Sobha Space (P) Ltd. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the appellate order dated 29/06/2015 passed by the ITAT, 'B' Bench, Bengaluru, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The primary legal question was whether the Tribunal was correct in law in canceling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, despite all ingredients being satisfied for the levy of such penalty. The court referenced the decision in CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory to resolve the issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699232 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: E I SANMATHI
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income tax appeal; Penalty; Section 271(1)(c); Tribunal
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260-A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.686/2015 C/w. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.687/2015 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL No.686/2015 BETWEEN: 1. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(3), NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) 2 AND: M/S SOBHA SPACE (P) LTD SHOBHA CORPORETE OFFICE SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BEALNDUR POST, BANGALORE-103 PAN:AAICSO419G ...RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29/06/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.887/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 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 SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:29/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 887/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN INCOME TAX APPEAL No.687/2015 BETWEEN: 1. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 3 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(3), NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. SOBHA SPACE (P) LTD SHOBHA CORPORETE OFFICE SARJAPUR, MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABISANAHALLI, BEALNDUR POST, BANGALORE-103 PAN:AAICSO419G ...RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 29/06/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.888/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 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 SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:29/06/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 888/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law: “Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) overlooking the provisions of the Act and even when all the ingredients are satisfied for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the case of assessee?” 2.Learned counsel fairly concedes that the matters are covered by the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. 3. In view of above, we find that when the issues are already covered by the decision of this Court, it 5 cannot be said any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. 4. Hence, the present appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- "