M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/683/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01039413201715 February 2021Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The court also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal in case occasion arises. No decision was made on the merits of any substantial questions of law, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Chitrakala Investment Trade & Business Finance Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The appeal arose from an order dated 01/05/2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1324/BANG/2012. The assessment year in question is 1996-97. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought to set aside the ITAT's order concerning its appeal for the specified assessment year. The revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order dated 01/05/2017 in ITA No.1324/BANG/2012 for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee's contention, as indicated by the filing of a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal, suggests a withdrawal from pursuing the matter further. The revenue's contention is not recorded in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the procedural step of the assessee deciding to withdraw the appeal before the High Court, thereby avoiding a decision on the merits of the substantial questions of law that might have been formulated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

I.T.A. NO.683 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

M/S. CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED, SYNDICATE HOUSE, MANIPAL – 576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SRI.P.P.MURALIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF SRI KARUNAKARAN

.... APPELLANT (BY SMT.PRATIBHA.R, ADV., FOR SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, AYAKAR BHAVAN, MALPE ROAD, AMBALPADY POST, ADIUDUPI, UDUPI – 576 103. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01/05/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1324/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-

97, PRAYING TO:- (A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (B) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DATED: 01/05/2017 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT’S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1324/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97; AND (C) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT GRANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Smt.Pratibha.R, learned counsel appearing for Sri.S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the assessee.

Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.

Learned counsel for the assessee has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal.

The aforesaid memo is taken on record.

For the reasons assigned in the memo, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same in case, occasion so arises.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

dn/-

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 →