THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/253/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01019898202330 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty to the revenue to revive it if it 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 made under Section 68. 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 Section 68 is applicable to remittances by non-residents and whether the assessee discharged its onus to prove the source of investor funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 68,Section 5(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41277-DB ITA No. 253 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. 253 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), 3RD FLOOR, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU -560001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD NO.2650,GROUND FLOOR, 37TH B CROSS 28TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 009, PAN: AACCK 9866F. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.S. NAGHARISH.,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 ABOVE, ALLOW THE

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41277-DB ITA No. 253 of 2023

APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN C.O. NO. 103/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO. 1441/BANG/2018) DATED 28.10.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ANNEXURE- C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 Sri. Raviraj. Y.V., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. G.S. Nagharish., 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 28.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in C.o.No.103/Bang/2018 (in ITA No.1441/Bang/2018) for the assessment year 2009-10, 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

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41277-DB ITA No. 253 of 2023

perverse in holding that Section 68 is not applicable to remittance made in India by a non- resident and that it was not the company’s onus to prove the source of investor-company? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act when all the conditions for invoking said section are satisfied in present case and when assesse had failed to discharge prima facie burden to establish credit worthiness of the investor? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal failed to observe that assessing authority had taken all steps to make addition under section 68 of the Act as required under the law and as per principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that what is not taxable under section 5(2) of the Act cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act when the provisions of section 5(2) are not applicable to instant case?”

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

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41277-DB ITA No. 253 of 2023

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 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.: 6

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 →