PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/648/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01047081201601 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Based on this submission, the High Court found no reason to entertain the appeal. The principle established in the cited case, which the present appeal is stated to be against the appellants, likely pertains to the issue that was before the ITAT. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellants, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Mysuru and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya, have filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order dated June 30, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ‘A’ Bench, in ITA No.722/Bang/2015. The assessment year in question is 2001-02. The respondent is Shri Jagannath S. Shetty, proprietor of M/s. Sagar Enterprises. The appeal was filed seeking formulation of a substantial question of law and to set aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should formulate a substantial question of law and set aside the appellate order passed by the ITAT for Assessment Year 2001-02. The appellants' contention, as presented by their counsel, is that the question raised in their appeal has already been answered against them by the High Court in a previous decision. They do not appear to have raised any specific arguments beyond this submission regarding the adverse precedent. The respondent's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.648/2016

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.648/2016

BETWEEN :

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-MYSURU

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MANDYA

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

SHRI. JAGANNATH S. SHETTY M/S. SAGAR ENTERPRISES, V.V.ROAD, MANDYA P.A: ABNPS1154K

...RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:30.06.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT ‘A’ BENCH IN ITA NO.722/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.648/2016

-2-

JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the question raised in this appeal is answered against the appellants by this Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

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 →