SRI ARUN G TOPPANNAVAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA I.T.A.No.1423/2006 BETWEEN: Sri.Arun G. Toppannavar, 3941, Basav Nagar, Club Road, Belgaum. .. APPELLANT (By Sri. A. Shankar, Adv.) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Belgaum. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Y.V. Raviraj, Standing Counsel for respondents) This ITA is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to set-aside the order passed by the ITAT, Panaji, in Appeal No.71/Panj/2006 dated 4.7.2006 in respect of order of assessment made u/s 143(3) r/w Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2000-2001, and etc.

2 This ITA coming on for Admission, this day, K.L. MANJUNATH J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT Heard Sri.A. Shankar, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri.Y.V.Raviraj, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Challenging the findings of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Belgaum, in ITA No.42 & 43/BGM/2005-06 dated 18.1.2006, for the assessment year 2000-2001, the appellant had filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, in ITA Nos.71 & 72/PANJ/2006 which were dismissed on 4.7.2006. Challenging the Tribunal’s order, the assessee preferred miscellaneous applications in M.A.Nos.34 & 35/PANJ/2006 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, which were dismissed on 4.8.2006. 3. Challenging the concurrent findings of respondents, the present appeal is filed. 4. The appellant is a civil contractor. For the assessment year 2000-2001 by declaring income of Rs.1,37,814/- filed return on 28.3.2002 under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. According to the appellant,

3 time limit to issue notice under Section 143(2)(ii) was 31.3.2003 and no such notice was issued to the appellant and the last date to pass an order of assessment under Section 143(3) was 31.3.2004. Much later on 6.2.2004 notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued for reassessment when the original return of income was filed on 28.3.2002 remained undisputed. Notice was served upon the appellant u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 17.2.2004. A notice u/s 143(2) and 142 came to be issued on 6.12.04. The order of assessment was passed on 24.3.2005. 5. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 24.3.2005, contending that issue of notice for re-assessment was barred by limitation and no reasons were accorded, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum, which was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal came was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed confirming the order of assessment and the order of Commissioner of Income Tax.

4 7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings present appeal is filed. 8. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee, still an appeal came to be preferred by him before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Two contentions are urged by Sri Shankar appearing for the assessee. According to him, notice of re-assessment is bad in law and barred by time and it is also his further contention that no proper reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case. 9. Mr Raviraj, the learned Counsel appearing for the department contents that, both grounds are not tenable because notice has been issued within the stipulated time and cannot be treated as barred by time. He has also furnished reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening the case. Relying upon the reasons recorded for reopening of the case, he submitted that there are no merits in this appeal and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the case, we are of the view that no questions of law

5 arise in this appeal because the appellant cannot dispute that notice issued by the assessing officer for reopening the case within the time is barred by time. Similarly on perusal of the reasons recorded, we are of the view that a detailed order has been passed by the assessing officer for reopening the case. Hence, we are of the view that the second contention is also devoid of merits. 11. In the circumstances, appeal is dismissed since no substantial question of arise for consideration. Consequently, I.A.1/2012 for dispensation does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE .sub/