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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/652/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01047586201601 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 learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the question raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn). Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no substantial question of law to be formulated or decided and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the conceded point.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Mysuru and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mandya) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, in ITA No.726/Bang/2015. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. The respondent is Shri. Jagannath S. Shetty, proprietor of M/s. Sagar Enterprises. The Revenue sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in its decision regarding the assessment for the year 2006-07, and if so, what substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's contention, as indicated by the filing of the appeal, is that the ITAT's order is erroneous and that substantial questions of law arise. The Revenue relies on the fact that they have filed this appeal under Section 260-A to seek a reversal of the ITAT's decision. No specific arguments or precedents were recorded for the Revenue in the judgment itself, beyond the act of filing the appeal. The Respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments as recorded in this judgment. The judgment notes that 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.652/2016

-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.652/2016

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.726/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.

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

ITA No.652/2016

-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 →