THE PR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR ULLAL KAKKETOTA BAVA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/143/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01025135202430 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting liberty to the Revenue to revive it if the matter falls within exceptions to the CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition of Rs. 4,42,89,894/-. The Revenue argued the addition was based on documents found during a survey and admissions made by the assessee. The assessee contended the appeal should not be entertained due to the tax effect being below Rs. 2 Crores, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition based on survey findings and assessee admissions, and whether the appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT circulars regarding tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 133A,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41211-DB ITA No. 143 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, GROUND FLOOR, PUNDALIK NIWAS, RUA DE OUREM, PATTO, PANAJI 403001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 ALBURQUEREUE HOUSE GROUND FLOOR,OPP FIZZA FORUM MALL PANDESWAR MANGALURU KARNATAKA 575001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR ULLAL KAKKETOTA BAVA 20-8-464, GUJARATH SEA FOODS, GOODS SHED ROAD, BUNDER, MANGALURU 575001 PAN ACZPK 8448F …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BORKAR SHEETAL SUBODH.,ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1014/BANG/2022

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41211-DB ITA No. 143 of 2024

DATED 31/10/2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ANNEXURE- A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dilip. M., along with Sri.Raviraj. Y.V., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. Borkar Sheetal Suboth, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.1014/Bang/2022 for the assessment year 2016-17, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,42,9,894/-without

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41211-DB ITA No. 143 of 2024

appreciating the fact that the additions were made based on the incriminating documents found & impounded during the course of survey, carried out under section 133A of the IT Act"? 2. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs4,42,89,894/- without appreciating that the addition made was on the basis of admissions made by the assessee in his statement recorded under section 131 of the IT Act based on corroborative evidence found & impounded during the course of survey carried out under section 133A of the act"? 3. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in not considering the evidence found and statement on oath given by the assessee during the course of search which is in contravention of ratio laid down in the case of Bannalal Jat constructions (p) ltd Vs Acit (2019) 106 taxmann. Com 128 (Supreme Court) wherein it was held that the statements made by the assessee during the course of Income tax proceedings have greater evidentiary value than the retraction?

3.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41211-DB ITA No. 143 of 2024

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

5.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

BS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 42

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 →