COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. ST. GEORGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

I.T.A. NO. 191 of 2014

BETWEEN :

Commissioner of Income tax,

C. R. Building, Queens Road,

Bangalore - 560 001

Deputy Director of

Income Tax (Exemptions),

Circle-17(2),

Bangalore.

...APPELLANTS

(By Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, Adv.)

AND :

M/s. St. George, Educational and Charitable Trust, OMBR Layout, 3rd Main, 4th Cross, Banaswadi, Bangalore -43

…RESPONDENT

(By Sri. A. Shankar & Sri. M. Lava, Advs.) . . . .

- 2 -

This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 03.01.2014 passed in ITA No.783/Bang/2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-10 praying to : (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 03.01.2014 passed by the ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Bangalore, as sought for, in the respondent- assessee’s case, in appeal proceedings No. I.T.A. No.783/Bang/2013 for Assessment year 2009-10.

This I.T.A. coming on for admission, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 12AA of the Income-Tax Act 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) and issuing a direction to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act retrospectively. In

- 3 -

passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has followed its earlier order in the assessee’s case itself.

It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the earlier case is dismissed by this Court. Now the matter is pending before the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal as the question involved in this appeal is already covered. In that view of the matter, we do not see any substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ST. GEORGE