THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DR SYED ANWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/955/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01052433200713 August 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in its judgment dated August 13, 2012, decided the appeal based on a prior ruling. The Court referred to its own decision in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s. Dhruv and Co. in ITA No.938/2006, decided on August 10, 2011. Following this precedent, the High Court answered the question of law in favour of the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a consequential order in accordance with the observations made in paragraph 4 of the cited case (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Dhruv and Co.). The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants/Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated August 10, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, in IT(SS)A No. 23/BANG/2005. The ITAT's order had confirmed the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The assessment years involved are 1991-1992 to 2001-2002. The dispute concerns the tax treatment of certain income for the assessee, Dr. Syed Anwar (Respondent). The High Court was asked to formulate substantial questions of law and allow the appeal, setting aside the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order dated August 10, 2007, in IT(SS)A No. 23/BANG/2005, concerning Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 2001-2002. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, Dr. Syed Anwar. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue sought to have the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirmed. The Revenue relied on the decision of the High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s. Dhruv and Co. in ITA No.938/2006 decided on 10.08.2011.

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 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. No.955 OF 2007 BETWEEN:- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Queen’s Road, Bangalore. 2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND:- Dr. Syed Anwar, No.11, Church Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Respondent (By Sri A. Shankar & Sri M. Lava, Advocates)

2 This I.T.A. is filed U/s.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 10.08.2007 passed in IT(SS)A 23/BANG/2005 for the Assessment Year 1991-1992 to 2001-2002, praying that this Hon’ble 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 IT(SS)23/Bang/2005 dated 10.08.2007 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle5(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal is coming on for final hearing this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T In view of the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s.Dhruv and Co. in ITA No.938/2006 decided on 10.08.2011, the question of law is answered in favour of revenue. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for passing the consequential order as per the observations in para 4 of the cited case. The appeal is allowed. 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 →