PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. SMT HEMA S REDDY

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.260 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE-560001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SMT. HEMA S. REDDY NO.670, 6TH CROSS KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560034 PAN: ABGPR1421H. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007, PRAYING TO:

2 (i) 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. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, 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 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 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the re-assessment order by holding that the assessing authority had not supplied the reasons for re-recording even though the assessee was made aware of the crux of the case through letter and assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing and assessee never objected to re-assessment proceedings?"

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 Supreme Court against the revenue in 'PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. V.RAMAIAH' (2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 202 (SC). The aforesaid statement of fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law of the Supreme Court, 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