M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.38 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

M/S. PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., NO.157, K. KAMARAJ ROAD BENGALURU – 560042 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. PRABHU KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE NAGARAJ N. VEMULKAR). ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.,)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(2), 14/3, 4TH FLOOR RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.11.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.242/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT, BENGALURU ‘C’ BENCH BEARING IN ITA NO.242/BANG/2013, DATED 14.11.2014

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2015 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of Learned Respondent in re-opening the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10, under Section 147 of the IT Act in the absence of any tangible material but merely on the basis of disallowance made in assessment year 2007-08?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in holding that the Appellant is eligible to claim depreciation only with reference to the written down value of transferred assets in the hands of predecessor firm and not with reference to actual cost incurred by it?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Respondent in invoking 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the IT Act in the assessment years subsequent to the assessment year in which the succession took place?

(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1)?

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss