COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/297/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01031169201602 November 2017Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT. The ITAT had remitted the matter for reconsideration to the Assessing Officer. The High Court explicitly stated that all contentions of both parties are kept open. Therefore, the High Court did not decide the merits of the case but upheld the ITAT's procedural direction. The ratio decidendi is that if an appellate tribunal remits a matter for reconsideration to the lower authority, and no substantial question of law is demonstrably made out by the revenue challenging this procedural step, the High Court may not interfere. The operative direction was that the appeal was disposed of, with the ITAT's order remaining in effect.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) are the appellants, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT, in its order dated 16/10/2015 in ITA No.703/Bang/2015, had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. The respondent is M/s. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust. The appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to set aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the ITAT remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, as a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's decision for the assessment year 2006-07. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (M/s. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust) before the High Court. The assessee was represented by counsel, but their arguments are not detailed. Revenue's Contentions: The appellants (Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Director of Income Tax) argued that the ITAT's order remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer was erroneous and that the High Court should set it aside. They sought to formulate substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The judgment does not specify the legal provisions or precedents relied upon by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.297/2016

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.297/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE

2.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S.AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE–560052

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI A.SHANKAR FOR SRI S.SUKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16/10/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.703/BANG/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.

ITA No.297/2016

-2- THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ag.CJ (Oral):

Heard. By the impugned order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter for reconsideration to the Assessing Officer. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, all contentions of both the parties are kept open.

Appeal disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

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 →