Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sri Vasant K Handigund on 6 November, 2009
Bench: V.G Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 4 V _ _
DATED TI-IIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER~~200:9_ "
PRESENT 'fl',:Cl".u
THE HON'BLE MR JUsTICI5;..\{iG.sABHHH1T"=
AND j: ' 4' 'p
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE s';N.sATYANA;_gAi'ANA 0
Income Tax of
Between:
1. The Commissioner of A
Income Tax Y "
Khimjibhoi Ciommeijcial Cpnlpiesg it C
Opp. Civili._Ho§§p'ital.V _ '
Belgaum?
2. The 2'
W&_1"d-1_ _ _'
Gokakl' ' ' _ " __ .. Appellants
(By Sri Seshac_hala,iA:dVocate)
AD»Ll~3;: 2' '
r VasVant'Kp[Handigund
' Consulting" Eragineer 82; Contractor
High' scho"_c1 Road
Golgak V. . ' .. Respondent
(By Sri.V$}-Parthasarathi, Advocate)
This income tax appeal is filed u/ s 260--A of I.T.Act,
1961 arising out of order cit. 06.09.2006 passed in MA
._N'o.05/PANJ/07 85 ITA No.64/PANJ/2004 for the
assessment year 2001-2002 praying that this I-Ion'ble Court
may be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law
stated therein and etc.
This appeal coming on for hearing before Court this
day, Sabhahit, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Revenue is filed being the order of the Income Tax Appellate Bench, Panaji in ITA No. 04/PANJ/'2'0O.S for t1§.éj'sasgéss}ine£¢ year 2000-2001 dated 05.09.2006l;«.wh§ré1n a_ppeal:"fi.leid._p by the Revenue has been dilsmissedhV'confi.rini:ng--;the sorder"
passed by the Commis_sionerpAef«ulneome Taxbfitppeals) dated 16.12.2004, wherein penalty under Section 271(1)'{c}' __of acancelled by the Appellate V .
'had ~l constructed a commercial of construction of the ground floorgjllat. Rs.8',3V_l2,()l00v/i» and cost of the first floor at f and the first floor was sold to a bank for During survey which was conducted on 27$}1.2.,0Ul.A:"'under Section 133A assessee was asked to explain'w--i'he cost of construction of first floor with cogent it --..eVi»d.e5nce and the assessee though initially agreed to get the it floor valued by approved Valuer, failed to do so and the matter was referred to departmental valuation officer and valued at Rs. 19,68,461/--. The assessee agreed to accept the said report and agreed for the addition of difference between xgjss the cost declared by him and computed by the departmental valuation officer and Assessing Officer initiated for concealment of income on the ground that t_.l1§:--s adir§.i"ssi'on by the assessee himself and his inab.i.lit_y to _'proidu1ce ievidencveii if to substantiate the claim and therefore depaiitmieint conducted survey under Section_ 1311}. peinaltyxi of Rs.4,35,000/-- was levied. y_li3iei.ng'v.aggrievedv'_Abyvvi?the same assessee preferred ._'Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), :ABelga11rn 1'iT'p_,i /BGM/2003.. 2004 and dated 16.12.2004 allowed the levy of penalty of Rs.4,3.$i,i Section 271(1)(c) had accepted the explanation aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Authority, Revenue preferred appeal ' if '*.'pefor:e the iincomefflak Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in and the Tribunal by its order dated
06..0_i9.200iEi_>i'Erziiismissed the appeal and confirmed the order V'-..passed.vi_n appeal dated 16.12.2004 and being aggrieved by i"1iii_Athefl:s_ame, this appeai is filed under Section 260-131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Appeal has been admitted on 10.08.2007 for considering the following substantial questions of law:
be/"
justified and the decision relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case and there.fo'ryei;~.the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be answering the substantial question of law_--ii1 of thev Revenue and against the assesseef,
4. On the other for the respondent submitted Tribunal confirming the order vijgpipellate Authority accepting the assessee and confirrningi the order of penalty show that there is concurreni ifindiingliioriiitfieyquestion of fact which does not suffer from any 'perversity or arbitrariness and wherefore b.oth"the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have 'vl.e§;planation given by the appellant, having regard to amount of penalty imposed and specific facts *..and ci'rcu~mstances of the case, this is not a fit case for "lii"interi'ering with the order passed by the Tribunal. We have giveri careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that the assessee has accepted the valuation made by \/--3> .
the departmental valuation officer and though the cost of construction of the first floor has been shown at Rs.30,l1,400/--, the assessee has accepted the valu'a,tion made by the departmental valuation ;~e--fiic.erlf' lat Rs. 19,68,461 /-- and has agreed for addition.Qf:lth.e'difference between the income and the expenditure 'shownpbyphiim at Rs.30,l 1,400/w and Rs. I9,68g,46l/l--7and._ has paid "tax Vo--ri't-he-'--V.p said amount. However, it waszcontended"by? the assessee that the valuation report wasmaccepted andtaxl has been paid on the difference to above to buy peace and to*a:v'oid _ha}mig regard to the coricurrenttx arrived at by the Appellate Authoriity and "Which has confirmed the order passed by theAppella-tel.Authority and having regard to the amoiin-ti'. of.' penalty imposed and other facts and circlumjstances pf the present case, we are satisfied that thoughvthetdelcision relied upon by the Tribunal may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, since the Tribunal hadgtonfirmed the finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate A Authority and there is concurrent finding by the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority accepting the cause shown by the assessee under Section 27I(1)(c) for deleting the order of penalty imposed under Section 27l(l)(c]. Having regard to \,..A the abovesaid facts of this case, the substantial questions of law have to be answered against the Revenue. We answer the substantial questions of law against the Revenuxeriatid in favour of the assessee and do not find interfere with the concurrent finding on the of fiact, arrived at by the Tribunal and the deleting the order of penalty »;.1assed"b.3?i'the under Section 27'1(1)(c) of théirfict. Aot~o_rdingly:;:a;apeal is dismissed.
i t Judge ea/~ Iudae