THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. MURUGESH R NIRANI and OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/100085/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC02007053201513 January 2017Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, held that the present appeal has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that M/s Nirani Sugars Ltd., the company subjected to a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, has already offered tax for the undisclosed income. The Income Tax paid by the company has achieved finality. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the ITAT's order or the original assessment order. The operative direction was 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, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench, in ITA No. 199/PNJ/2014, dated January 8, 2015. The assessment year in question is 2003-04. The Revenue sought 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 Sri Murugesh R. Nirani & Others (AOP). The appeal was listed for admission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous, thereby warranting dismissal? 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 Income Tax paid by the company has reached finality. Therefore, the Revenue argues that the present appeal should be dismissed as infructuous. No contentions were recorded for the Respondent (assessee).

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. 100085/2015 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: Sri Murugesh R. Nirani & Others (AOP), No. 916-A, Basav Nagar, Mudhol, Bagalkot-587 313. - 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. 199/PNJ/2014, dated 08.01.2015 for the assessment year 2003-04 and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji & etc. This appeal coming on for admission this day, RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J, delivered the following:

2 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 →