THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PROPERTY INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/270/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01014535202123 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 the Revenue liberty 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 filed an appeal against an ITAT order that deleted additions made on account of unexplained cash payments. The assessee argued that the appeal should not be entertained due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was right in deleting additions based on seized materials and voluntary admissions, and whether the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 132(4),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39397-DB ITA No. 270 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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. 270 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUIDLING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S PROPERTY INFOTECH INDIA PVT LTD DOOR NO.16-1-32, ROHAN CORPORATION, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU-575002 PAN.AAFCP4270P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K R VASUDEVAN., ADVOCATE)

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

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39397-DB ITA No. 270 of 2021

THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.2356/BANG/2019 DATED 24/08/2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 Raviraj Y.V, along with learned counsel Sri Dilip M, for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri K.R.Vasudevan, 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 24.8.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.2356/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2016-17, raising the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting the additions made by

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39397-DB ITA No. 270 of 2021

assessing authority in respect of unexplained cash payments made of Rs.3,40,00,004/- to M/s. GSRL (Global Star Realtors Pvt. Ltd) in various projects namely, MICASA, Ventura and Premier of M/s PIPL (Property Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd.) based on evidences found during search/survey conducted at the chamber of Sri.M.N.Rajendra Kumar at SCDCC Bank ignoring record/seized materials during course of search and survey action in the assessee group which supported the additions and as such order passed by Tribunal is perverse in nature?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not considering the voluntary admission’s made in statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act on two different dates as well as once recorded under Section 131 of the Act which were retracted later after is 18 months without giving due credence to the digital evidences and material found during course of search?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is right in law deleting addition made as unexplained investment in M/s. Global Star Realtor’s Pvt Ltd by holding that there is no evidence that cash payments ignoring the seized materials?

(iv) Whether the order passed by Tribunal can be said as perverse in law in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investments and cash received ignoring the materials on record and findings given by assessing authority and without considering the concept of human probabilities in present set of facts of the case?”

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39397-DB ITA No. 270 of 2021

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.

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 questions of law are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0

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 →