! IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23" DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNAIfiE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V._xAéARATHfiA3*E I.T.A.No.3026/2d05Ie'" BETWEEN: M/s H.Dasappa & Sons, R/by its Partner, V D.Dasappa, No.421,II= _V III Cross, Wilson Gérden,fE} ,EI»I Bangalore: ", T_; =VT"¢5~ APPELLANT (By§AdveéeEe_Sr1,§z$hankar) AND: The Asst. Commissioner of ",Inc¢fie Tag, Circle~l(3), _ Unifiy Efiildfing Annexure, VgMission_R¢ad;r Bangalore, fWr' .. RESPONDENT
(By Advdtate Sri.K.V.Aravind)
‘*IThis ITA is filed under Sec.260A of the Income
VV_Téx§Act,l961 to allow the appeal and set aside the
.erders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
V”=._Eanga1ore, dated 15.5.2005 in ETA No.1l1/Bang/2002 on
k
/.
the validity of imposition penalty under
Sec.27l(l)(a) of the Income Tax Act for the
assessment year 1986-87.
This Appeal is coming on for final hearing this
day, NAGARATHNA J. delivered the following Q; Vfl_a
The assessee has prefierréd 2 this *,&ppeai=”
challenging the order dat’ed~.,..16.5-.2o.o_5’_;§n’s’s.ed~w3 in ‘ETA
No.lll/Bang/2002 raising the _following _substantia1
questions of law:
1. Whether_t’h.e it-justified in law in
holding ‘thatT the “levy-Wof penalty under
Sec.27lLl}{a)’ofi the Act is correct in law on
the facts and circumstances of the case?
2. Whether t.he«VA’*T_r’ibnna1 is justified in holding
that there was no reasonable cause for delay
gin filing the return of income on the facts
fl*and circdmstances of the case?
2,’ The fiacts of the case are that the assessee is
Va partnership firm carrying on business as Toddy and
“g«Arrack contractor and is 2: dealer registered under
.ithe~iKarnataka. Excise .Act. Subject matter of ‘this
iiiddfipeal is with regard to levy of penalty under
z’.
-‘x
“3
Sec.27l(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act for the
assessment year 1986~87.
3. The assessee had filed its return of ihcome for
the said assessment year on 1o.3.19a9,-eeeeeee_ in
terms of the provisions of the Act, return of income
had to be filed on 3o.5.1985.f For the said period ef l
delay in filing the return of income, fiepartfient had
levied interest and. that “aspect let “the hmatter had
been accepted by the*aassessee,:F_ Howefier, penalty
under Sec.27l(1)(a) of “the .§ctF was 1also levied. on
account therex’ii§:5b.einpg–.ia”delay of eight months in
filing the ;said@Vreturns,. The authorities below
including the tribunal upheld the levy of penalty and
pit, is ithe ssaidK”order which is questioned in this
appeal: ” it is with regard to that portion of the
hs;.order there pehalty was levied for a period of about
if_eight months, this appeal has been filed.
i’4sl.Wefl have heard the learned counsel for the
dvappellant and the learned counsel for the respondent~
h”%,department and perused the material on record.
*3: