THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAIVADNYA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMIT

ITA/100185/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC02014362201515 June 2016Bench: H.G.RAMESH,RATHNAKALA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Appellant's counsel that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Appellant by the same High Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015, rendered in ITA Nos. 100047/2015 and 100048-49/2015. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in entertaining the present appeal as the legal issue was already settled. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural and precedential ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) 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 (ITAT), Panaji Bench. The Respondent in this appeal is Daivadnya Sahakara Bank Niyamit. The appeal was listed for orders regarding non-compliance with an office objection. However, the Appellant's counsel submitted that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal had already been decided against the Appellant by the High Court in a previous judgment dated 16.12.2015 in other appeals (ITA Nos. 100047/2015 and 100048-49/2015). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to admit the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the ITAT. The substantial question of law, as formulated by the Appellant, was not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, the Appellant's counsel conceded that this question of law had already been answered against the Appellant by the High Court in a prior judgment. The Appellant argued that the appeal should be allowed and the ITAT's order set aside, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue (Appellant) relied on the fact that the substantial question of law had been decided against them in previous judgments. The Respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed based on the Appellant's submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.100185 OF 2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA ITA No.100185 OF 2015 BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BELAGAVI ... APPELLANT (By Sri Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND Daivadnya Sahakara Bank Niyamit, 1169, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgavi. PAN AAAAD0328D ... RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO (a) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE (b) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI, IN ITA NO.71/PNJ/2015, DTD:28.07.2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, H.G. RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.100185 OF 2015 -2- JUDGMENT H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): This appeal is listed for orders regarding non compliance of an office objection. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the appellant by this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2015 rendered in ITA Nos. 100047/2015 and 100048-49/2015. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →