PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/540/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01036102201705 December 2017Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY (AG.CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the questions raised in this appeal have already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Reddy Janasangha [(2016) 389 ITR 229 (Karn)]. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, including the application for condonation of delay. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by this Court in a similar matter, indicating that further adjudication of the present appeal would be futile. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mangaluru in ITA No.1981/BANG/2016. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013. The respondent is Sri Mookambika Temple, Kollur, Udupi. The Revenue is seeking to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order. The appeal was filed with a delay, for which an interlocutory application (IA No.1/2017) was filed for condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are to be formulated and decided. The Revenue contended that the questions raised in the appeal are substantial questions of law that warrant consideration by the High Court. The Revenue relied on the fact that they are seeking to set aside the order of the ITAT. The Respondent (Sri Mookambika Temple) did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law, but implies they relate to the ITAT's decision which the Revenue wishes to challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.540/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 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.540/2017

BETWEEN :

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS

ATTAVARA, MANGALURU

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 MANGALURU

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

SRI MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE KOLLUR, UDUPI

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT, MANGALURU IN ITA NO.1981/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 2013.

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

ITA No.540/2017

-2-

JUDGMENT

Ag.CJ (Oral):

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the questions raised in this appeal are answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Karnataka Reddy Janasangha [(2016) 389 ITR 229 (Karn)]. Hence, IA No.1/2017 filed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal are accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

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 →