THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/747/2006HC KarnatakaKAHC01058325200623 July 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka observed that the question of law involved in this appeal is identical to the one in I.T.A. No. 95/2006, which was disposed of on July 18, 2012. The Court noted that in I.T.A. No. 95/2006, the question of law was answered against the revenue. The Court further stated that it had relied on its earlier decision in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another –vs- M/s. Canfin Homes Limited reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3153, in disposing of I.T.A. No. 95/2006. Consequently, following the precedent set in the earlier appeal, the question of law in the present appeal is also answered against the revenue. The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants) against M/s. Syndicate Bank (Respondent). The appeal arises from an order dated November 11, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, in Int.TA No. 17/Bang/2004. The ITAT's order had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had upheld the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Mangalore. The assessment year in question is 2000-01. The High Court of Karnataka is considering the appeal for admission, with the appellants seeking to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law formulated in the appeal should be decided in favour of the revenue? (Question of law) The Assessee (Syndicate Bank) has not recorded arguments. The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) contends that the ITAT's order confirming the Appellate Commissioner's order and the Joint Commissioner's order should be set aside. The Revenue relies on the High Court's earlier decision in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another –vs- M/s. Canfin Homes Limited reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3153, to argue its case. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific grounds or arguments presented by the revenue beyond seeking to set aside the lower authorities' orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. No.747 OF 2006 BETWEEN:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Attavara, Mangalore. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst), Special Range, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri E. Sanmathi Indrakumar, Advocate) AND:- M/s. Syndicate Bank, Accounts Dept. Tax Cell, H.O. Manipal – 576 104. Respondent (By M/s. King & Patridge, Advocates) This ITA is filed U/s.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 11-11-2005 passed in Int.TA 17/Bang/2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, praying that this Hon’ble

2 Court may be pleased to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and (ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in Int.TA 17/Bang/2004 dated 11-11-2005 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner & confirm the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Asst.) Special Range, Mangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal is coming on for admission this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T The question of law involved in this case and in I.T.A. No.95/2006 disposed of on 18.07.2012 is one and the same. The question of law in I.T.A.No.95/2006 is answered against the revenue. In that regard, the earlier decision of this court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and Another –vs- M/s. Canfin Homes Limited reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3153, is relied on in I.T.A.No.95/2006. In that view, the question of law is answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NM*

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 →