1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No.262 OF 2015 (IT) BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R.Building, Bangalore. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3), Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Adv.,) AND: Shri. Raveendhiraa.L PAN: ACPPR4092L No.431, Sonnappanahalli Village, Bettahalsur Post, Jala Hobli, North Taluk, Bangalore 562157. Respondent (By Sri. A.Shankar & M.Lava, Advs.,) 2 This ITA / Income Tax Appeal under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated:12/12/2014 passed in ITA No.1422/Bang/2013, for Assessment Year 2009-2010 praying this Hon ble Court to: 1. Decide foregoing question of law and / or such other questions of law as may be formulated by Hon ble Court as deemed fit. 2. Set aside appellate order dated: 12/12/2014 passed by ITAT, Bench, Bangalore, in appeal proceedings No. ITA No.1422/BNG/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-2010, as sought for in this appeal. This appeal is coming on for Orders this day, VINEET SARAN, J. delivered following: JUDGMENT Heard Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sri. A.Shankar and Sri.M.Lava, learned counsel for respondent-assessee and perused records. 2. This appeal has been filed raising following substantial questions of law: 3 (1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) wherein assessee has concealed particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in return? (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting penalty holding that assessing officer has not specified in notice u/s 271(1)(c) whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and hence notice is invalid? (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in relying upon decision in case of M/s. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory whereas fact in assessee s case being that assessee had 4 not at all filed return of income prior to survey? 3. Tribunal has allowed appeal filed by assessee holding notice issued by Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of Act, penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Tribunal, while allowing appeal of assessee, has relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs- Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since matter is covered by Division Bench of this Court, we are of opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for 5 determination by this Court. appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3), BANGALORE v. Shri. Raveendhiraa.L