THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SRI RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/583/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01047251202330 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 2 Crores, making it not maintainable under CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to revive if exceptions applied.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2006-07. The appeal questioned the Tribunal's decision to quash a re-assessment order and its findings regarding HUF partition and AMP expenses.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars. Substantial questions of law regarding the validity of re-assessment and HUF partition were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 147,Section 171,Section 150,Section 153

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41478-DB ITA No. 583 of 2023

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. 583 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1) PRESENT ADDRESS, ITO, WARD 4(3)(2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI RAJKUMAR C (HUF) NO 259/B, 7TH CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1, BENGALURU 560102 PAN AAMHR 4074B …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF 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

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41478-DB ITA No. 583 of 2023

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGLAURU IN ITA NO. 1380/BANG/2014 DATED 31/10/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 ANNEXURE- A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(2), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, 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 Raviraj Y.V., for appellants/Revenue.

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 31.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.1380/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in law in quashing re-assessment order earlier re- assessment order on the ground that

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41478-DB ITA No. 583 of 2023

conditions for invoking Section 147 of the Act was not satisfied and subsequently after remand holding that re-assessment order in case of HUF cannot be made as per section 171 of the Act giving contradictory judgment? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that as re- assessment order is in accordance with Section 150 and 153 of the Act has held that same is invalid by invoking section 171 of the Act when no such direction was given by this Honb’le Court to examine the case in light of Section 171 of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature not appreciating that assessing authority has the power to disbelieve oral and documentary evidence produced in support of the partition, if the circumstances exist to support such an inference? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order is perverse in holding HUF was not existing as on date of passing assessment order when said alleged partition was between husband, wife and minor children which tool adopted by assesse to evade tax under section 171 of the Act?

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41478-DB ITA No. 583 of 2023

5.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that conduct of assesse that assesse challenged assessment order passed in case of Individual also and now has taken up stand that HUF was nto existing when assessment order is passed in case of HUF by contending that HUF was disrupted? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition made on account of AMP expenses ignoring that same has created intangible asset?” 3. It is noticed that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable 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.

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

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41478-DB ITA No. 583 of 2023

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 questions of law are 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.: 13

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 →