THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S SIDDASHRI PATTIN SOUHARDA

ITA/100034/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC02003684201605 July 2016Bench: H.G.RAMESH,RATHNAKALA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, held that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in its previous decision in I.T.A. No.100029/2015, dated 06.01.2016. Based on this concession by the revenue's counsel, the Court found the appeal to be liable for dismissal. The reasoning was that a consistent view had been taken by the Court on the same question of law. The ratio decidendi is that if a substantial question of law has been decided by the High Court in a prior appeal, subsequent appeals raising the same question are likely to be dismissed on the same grounds. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bangalore, in ITA No.255/BANG/2015, dated 30.06.2015. The respondent is M/s. Siddashri Pattin Souharda Sahakari Niyamith. The appeal was listed for orders regarding non-compliance with office objections. The learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in a previous case, ITA No.100029/2015, decided on 06.01.2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law raised in the appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court's decision in I.T.A. No.100029/2015, dated 06.01.2016? Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed based on the concession of the revenue's counsel. The revenue's counsel submitted that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in I.T.A. No.100029/2015 (D.D. 06.01.2016), and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA NO.100034/2016 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA I.T.A. NO.100034/2016 BETWEEN 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BELAGAVI. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SIDDASHRI PATTIN SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITH, S.S ROAD, VIJAYAPUR. PAN: AAAJS3372F …RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH BANGALORE IN ITA NO.255/BANG/2015, DATED 30.06.2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

ITA NO.100034/2016 -: 2 :- THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): This appeal is listed for orders re.non-compliance of office objections. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in I.T.A. No.100029/2015 (D.D. 06.01.2016), and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Kms

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →