PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/651/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01047083201601 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the question raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Based on this concession, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind that decision are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of a prior precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if a substantial question of law raised in an appeal has been authoritatively decided against the Revenue by the High Court in a previous judgment, the Revenue's subsequent appeal on the same question will be dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, comprising the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Mysuru and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenged an order dated June 30, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, in ITA No. 725/Bang/2015. The assessment year in question is 2005-06. The appeal was filed seeking formulation of substantial questions of law and to set aside the ITAT's order. The respondent is Shri Jagannath S. Shetty, proprietor of M/s. Sagar Enterprises.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in its decision regarding the issue in appeal, which is being challenged by the Revenue. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in this appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.651/2016

-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.651/2016

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.725/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06.

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

ITA No.651/2016

-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 →