THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.344/2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD., SIDDAPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE ROAD CHALLAKERE-577522. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. SHANKAR A, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W MR. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1553/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.

2 (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1553/BANG/2013 DATED 13/02/2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessing officer did not make any independent enquiry, whereas, in fact it was the assessing officer who had initiated enquiry and requested the sales tax Department to investigate the existence of the three purchase parties at Solapur?

3 (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no independent enquiry made by the assessing officer except for the report of the sales tax authorities, which cannot find basis for coming into conclusion of entire amount of purchases being bogus and considering the facts the tribunal has ordered for disallowance of only 20% of the purchasers from three entities for each of the assessment years involved?" For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.342/2014, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the tribunal to decide the issue afresh in the light of observations made in this judgment.

4 In the result, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss