CIT vs Topline Credits Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2013

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A.NO.402/2007 AND I.T.A.NO.403/2007

BETWEEN:

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, C.R.Building,

Queens Road,

Bangalore.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

…APPELLANTS COMMON

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.)

AND:

Topline Credits Ltd., No.3353, 5th Cross, HAL II Stage, 12A Main, Bangalore – 560 008. ...RESPONDENT COMMON

(By Sri.Shyam Sunder Bajpekar, Adv. in ITA No.402/07 In ITA No.403/07–respondent served & unrepresented)

- 2 - ITA No.402/07 is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 30/11/2006 passed in ITA No.10/Bang/2005 for the Assessment year 1997-98 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.10/Bang/2005 dated 30.11.2006 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(3), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.

ITA No.403/07 is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 30/11/2006 passed in ITA No.9/Bang/2005 for the Assessment year 1996-97 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.9/Bang/2005 dated 30.11.2006 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(3), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. These appeals coming on for hearing this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J, delivered the following:-

- 3 - PC:

These two appeals arise from common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.9/Bang/2005 and ITA No.10/Bang/2005 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 whereby the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Assessment Officer vide order dated 16.03.2004 reopened the assessment as provided for under Section 10(a) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 on the ground that the respondent – assessee did not file return of his income for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The order of reopening of the assessment was carried in appeal by the respondent – assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA Nos.01 and 02/ACIT 12(3)/CIT(A)III/04-05. In appeal, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeals partly. The Appellate Authority while allowing the appeals observed that the Assessing Officer over looked the fact that the return of income for both the years was filed by the

- 4 - assess. In the circumstances, he held that reopening of the assessment for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 was bad in law. This view of the Appellate Authority was affirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2006. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal reads thus: “We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused records. The assessing Officer did not controvert the fact that the returns for the years 96-97 and 97-98 were filed by the assessee on its own. However, the A.O. reopened the assessment on the ground that no returns were filed. The A.O. had reopened the assessment for the asst. years 96-97 and 97-98 on the ground that no returns were filed. However, the fact remains that the assessee had filed returns. Therefore, reopening of assessment for the asst. years is bad in law. The decision relied by the Ld. A.R. is squarely applicable. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the asst. year 96-97 and 97-98 are confirmed.”

The facts of the case, as they appear, are not in dispute. Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue could not support the decision of reopening of the

- 5 - assessment for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. On the contrary, the orders impugned and the other material placed on record clearly reveal that the assessee had filed returns for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, but through inadvertence, he had filed it before the wrong Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, in the present case, over looked the fact that return of income was filed by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below.

Though it may not be relevant for disposing of the appeals, we also noticed that the amount involved in both the appeals is less than Rs.1,00,000/-.

The appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TOPLINE CREDITS LTD