PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. SHRI M R SEETHARAM(HUF)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.286 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 6(1), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM (HUF), GOKULA HOUSE GOKULA MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560054 PAN:AAHHS7342J ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV., FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.10.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.927/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.10.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA

2 NO.927/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Lava, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2017 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue by quashing the re- assessment order on the ground that the said order has been passed by without supplying the reasons for re- opening without appreciating that the assessee was well aware of the reasons for invoking reassessment proceedings and had contested the proceedings actively and decisions relief upon by Revenue have not been reached finality, further without taking note of section 292BB of the Act?"

3 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law framed by this Court has already been answered by the decision of this Court in ITA No.259/2017 passed on 16.01.2021. The aforesaid statement of fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 16.01.2021 passed in ITA No.259/2017, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV