ITA.No. 997.2667
IN THE HIGH coum' 0F"K}\r€i«ATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2008
PRESENT
THE HGIWBLE MRJUSFICE K.L.MANJUNA'_m'»::':'_:'._
ANI}
THE HOWBLE MRSJUSPICE B.V.NAGAEu§$THA£§A._ 3 ~
I.T.A.NO.997::fA'2OQ4~? ;, '* = S
mrwszmn: ' "
1 THE COMMISSIONER d'F..fNP,0ME TAX
C R BUILDING _ =
QUEENS ROAD,;:_BANGi§I.Oi§f:;'.
2 THE ASST CoMIsS'rtj_NSR:" TAX
Vv*CIRc£;E:e2('i}1; " AV
]BAI}!GALDR.E'a
. ' ...APPELLAN'I'S
(By Sri: M'S?' SESH_AGHA.§SA, ADV.)
_____
_ --vM;'S'!3LECFORNlC RESEARCH LTD
* ..oLp' mnms ROAD,
' WRGOPJAKAR
E.'-«ANG-ALORE
' RESPONDENT
AA [TA filed u[S.260-A of I.'i'.Act, 1961 arising out of
* Qmgzr dated 10~08----200'7 passed in rm No. 245/Bang/2006
for' the Assessment Year 1999-2000, praying that this
1Hon'bIc Comt may be pleased to:
' VV " "i. formulatxz the substantial questions of law smted therein,
allow the appeal and Set aside the Order passed by the
ITAT, passed in ITA 245/Bangjzoofi dated 10-O8-2007
confirm the oldest cf the Appelatc Commissioner and order of
the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central circle,
Bangalore.
I'I'A.No. 907.2007
This ITA coaxing on for ORDERS on day,
MANJUNATH J, delivered the following:--
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the rés}éfit;a,_ Qh”a1:11V'”1::;1§1§g Vihex 1 j 2
concurrent findings of the order
the Income Tax
245/ Bang] 2006 dataizx 10.’3.:’20b_? under of
Commissioner of Bangalore dated
17.1.2006 (A)-
VI the findings ofthe
Depu’i:y~ Tax dated 3o.3.2oos in
2. .. LA T116; bf ‘they are stated as hmeunden
.:’I”h.§: mfijiofidenti assesses: filed its annual return of
1 V the assessment year 19994000 on 31.12.1999
income of Rs.78,98,397/- under the regular
Pxrfiiifiiéns of Income Tax Act. The matter was taken up for
” V1 The assessment was finalized on 28.3.2002 under
Section 143(3) of the Inooxnc Tax Act and certain additions
were made under two heads namely, under valuation of
closing stock of Rs.39,3S,906/ – and excess 801-A dwuctioa
claim Rs.6.24.612I–. Accoxdinglv. the tax was computed
A
and the assesses was called upon to pay Rs.43,32,969/ -.
mi”
ITA.NO. 907.2007
3. On an appeal filed by the assessee the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of
directed the Assessing Oficer to exclude two ite;;’1s- 5:’ (
the closing stock, as they were not in
circumstances, the Deputy C0113-;1niss:i0x3ei*_)) cf
invoking the Provisions of 27?_1(1)(e)—- the Tz«ix(“1′-‘:et’= L)
}ev1;ed’ the penalty of Rs.9,4’f;§30/-. Agai.n§’-stV'(‘~.ssi¢h the
assesses filed an income
Tax (Appeals), which allowed on the
ground that the _1-fie against the
ori§’n)a1″61dei*;ofA§%3ssss'”*m.V_:’e§1t seen allowed. In the light
of of ‘ assessee against the order of
assessme’t1t,((the) of Income Tax (Appeals) came
penaity cannot be levied under
‘ of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order
H ‘eyj:..’vCemm1’ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he
m§c;;u§((fi1e& an appeal, which appeal has been disnnssed” on
V gound thereby confirming the order passed by the
‘A’v.Cc)11im5.ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Being aggrieved by
” ” ‘These two orders, the present appeal is filed ra1sm’ ‘ g the
folloiwing substantial question of law:
‘Whether the appellate auflmfities were
correct in holding ihat the penalty levied cannot
be sustained as the quantum additions have
3″
O
ITZLNO. 907.208′?
_. 4 _.
been set aside by the Tribune! and which order
has been appealed begfore this cow! and is
awaiting disposal?’
4. Having heard the counsel for the
learned counsel for the appcfiant submits
matter is seized by this court on the “of _
assessment, the appeal may be
the appellant to initiate
of the Act provided the bf; ks; the ‘A
Iegular assessment “‘Wé sce some
force in thc arguments. ‘ VA ”
5. appcai is dismissed as
withdras Vk for the appellant to invoke the:
:271(1)(c) pmvided the appeal fried
on’:s.ji;he:,.A’ongnna1′ sfder of assessment in I’I’A.No.945/2006 is
#9.’?
Sci].
Judge
Sd/-
Judge
KV!l*