THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI C RAMAIAH REDDY

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.114/2009 BETWEEN : 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS ( By Sri. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : SHRI C RAMAIAH REDDY RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGAR VIBHUTHIPURA BANGALORE-560 037. RESPONDENT ( By Sri. A SHANKAR & Sri M LAVA, ADVs.)

2 This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 17.10.2008 in IT(SS)A No.10/Bang/2008. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, N KUMAR J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 17th October, 2008 passed by the Tribunal in respect of the block period from 1.4.1985 to 5.12.1995. 2. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 5.12.1995. In pursuance to the notice dated 8.12.1996 under Section 158BC of the Act, the assessee filed a return of undisclosed income on 1.3.1996 for the block period from 1.4.1985 to 5.12.1995. The Assessing Officer proceeded to bring to tax the undisclosed income for the block period by his order dated 28.1.1997. Against the said order, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Some issues came to be answered against him and some other issues came to be remanded to the

3 Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The present appeal is against the order passed after such remand. In the meanwhile, the assessee had preferred an appeal before this Court against the order of the Special Bench. In the said appeal, this Court by an order dated 17.10.2011 held that the period of limitation starts from the date of search and panchanama drawn and not from the date of last panchanama. 3. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, admittedly the original order of assessment was passed beyond the period of limitation. Therefore the original assessment order itself was set aside by this Court. In the light of the said order, this appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm.