THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. BHAGWANDAS MUKUNDAS JAJU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/100082/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC02008275201513 January 2017Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the company subject to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income, and this tax payment has reached finality. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous. No specific ratio decidendi for future citation is explicitly stated beyond the finding on infructuousness. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, comprising the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) and the ACIT, Central Cir-2, Belagavi, has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench, in ITA No. 204/PNJ/2014. The assessment year in question is 2001-02. The appeal seeks to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji. The appeal was filed against Shri Bhagwandas Mukundas Jaju.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal has become infructuous, and if so, what is the consequence for the appeal? (Question of law) The Revenue's contention is that the appeal has become infructuous because M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the company where a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income. The tax paid by the company has reached finality. The Revenue relies on this fact to argue for the dismissal of the appeal. The Respondent's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Dated this the 13th day of January 2017 Present THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN And THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR I.T.A. No. 100082/2015 Between 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Queen’s Road, Bengaluru. 2. ACIT, Central Cir-2, Belagavi. - Appellants (By Sri Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate) And: Shri Bhagwandas Mukundas Jaju, Ward No. 10, H. No. 354, Shri Narayan, Sarvodayanagar, Ichalkarani-416 115, APAPJ6318B. - Respondent (By Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni & H.R. Kambiyavar, Advocates) This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act praying to set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, in ITA No. 204/PNJ/2014, dated 08.01.2015 for the assessment year 2001-02 and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji & etc.

2 This appeal coming on for admission this day, RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT Sri Y.V. Raviraj, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the present appeal has become infructuous as M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the Company, where the search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income. The Income Tax paid by the Company has already reached finality. Therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed as infructous. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bvv

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →