THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI JAYAVELU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/611/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01046117200703 February 2014Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved that required adjudication. The Court observed that the present appeal, ITA No.611/207, had become infructuous in view of the disposal of the main appeals, ITA Nos.404 & 405 of 2007, by this Court. The Court noted that the earlier ITAT order dated 21-12-2006 had been set aside by this Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. However, liberty was granted to both sides to take appropriate remedies, including the revival of this appeal, after the disposal of appeals pending before the Tribunal bearing ITA Nos.3570 & 3572 of 2004. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Revenue) against an order dated 27/02/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1694/Bang/2005. The assessment year in question is 1998-99. The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner. The High Court noted that the assessee's appeals were previously held to be infructuous because an order passed by the Tribunal on 21-12-2006 for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 had been declared void ab initio. The Revenue had filed appeals (ITA Nos.404 & 405 of 2007) against this 21-12-2006 order, which were partly allowed by the High Court on 03-02-2014, setting aside the Tribunal's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law involved requiring adjudication by this Court, given the procedural history and the disposal of related appeals. The Revenue argued that the present appeal (ITA No.611/207) has become infructuous due to the disposal of the main appeals (ITA Nos.404 & 405 of 2007) by this Court. The Revenue also contended that the ITAT's order dated 21-12-2006, which was the basis for the assessee's appeals being held infructuous, has been set aside by this Court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the substantial question of law.

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 BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

ITA NO.611/2007 BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -10(1), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

…..Appellants

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)

AND:

Sri.R.Jayavelu, No.6Y/36, 59th Cross, III Main, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.

…Respondent

(By Sri.K.S.Hanumanth Rao, Advocate)

This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act 1961, arising out of order dated 27/2/2007 passed in ITA No.1694/Bang/2005, for the Assessment year 1998-99, praying this Hon’ble Court to

i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated there in. ii. allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.1694/Bang/2005 dated 27/02/2007 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Bangalore.

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants.

2.

This appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is against the order dated 27-02-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

3.

It is seen from the records that the appeals filed by the assessee were held to be infructuous mainly because the order passed by the Tribunal on 21-12- 2006 for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 had been held to be void abinitio.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that against the order dated 21-12-2006 the revenue has already preferred appeals under Section 260A of the Act, which are pending before this Court and have been registered as ITA Nos.404 and 405 of 2007. This Court, by judgment dated 03-02-2014, has partly allowed both the appeals i.e. ITA Nos.404 & 405 of 2007, setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21-12-2006.

5.

Thus, we find that there is no substantial question of law involved which may require an adjudication by this Court. Moreover, this appeal i.e. ITA No.611/207 has rendered infructuous in view of disposal of the main

appeals i.e. ITA Nos.404 & 405 of 2007. However, we grant liberty to both sides to take appropriate remedy, including revival of this appeal, after the disposal of the appeals pending before the Tribunal bearing ITA Nos.3570 & 3572 of 2004. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

mpk/-*

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 →