MUNINAGA REDDY Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant assessee has preferred the present appeal. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after some arguments did not press question Nos.1 and 2 and hence, only question No.3 is pressed, which reads as under:

(2.) We have heard Mr. P. Dinesha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assessee as well as Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent revenue for final disposal of the appeal. Hence, appeal is admitted and finally heard.

(3.) The only aspect to be considered in the present appeal is the order for imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act and whether such penalty could survive in view of the decision of this Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 2013 359 ITR 565 (KAR), inspite of the fact that said decision was brought to the notice of the lower authority including Tribunal.