THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S ANANTHPUR MINING CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/22/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01031848201926 February 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record, and the Court allowed the memo. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that might have been intended to be raised. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the appellant's request.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bengaluru, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA No.1801/BANG/2017, dated July 13, 2018. This Tribunal order pertained to Assessment Year 2009-2010 and had confirmed an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent in this appeal is M/s Ananthpur Mining Corporation. The appellants sought to formulate substantial questions of law, allow the appeal, and set aside the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue sought to set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, dated July 13, 2018, which had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner and the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Revenue also sought to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (assessee) in this appeal before the High Court. The judgment also does not explicitly state the specific grounds or substantial questions of law that the Revenue intended to raise, other than the general prayer to set aside the Tribunal's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

I.T.A. NO.22/2019

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME-TAX CIT(A)

CENTRAL CIRCLE

C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD

BENGALURU-560 001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE(1)(3)

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BENGALURU-560 001.

.... APPELLANTS (BY SRI ARAVIND K.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S ANANTHPUR MINING CORPORATION GANESH NAGAR NEAR KUMARASWAMY TEMPLE INFANTRY ROAD BELLARY-583 103 PAN: AACFA 1477F ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THIS APPEAL; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1801/BANG/2017 DATED 13.07.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU; AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMDISSION THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 26.02.2021 seeking permission of this Court withdraw the appeal. Memo is taken on record.

The said memo is allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

KGR*

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →