THE COMMISSONIER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAGAR CHEMICALS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.198/2008 c/w ITA No.201/2008

ITA No.198/2008 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSONIER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2 ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12-10-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 85/BNG/2006, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1996 TO 9/5/2002, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.85/BNG/2006, DATED 12-10-2007 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE. ITA No.201/2008 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSONIER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

3 ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12-10-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 92/BNG/2006, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1996 TO 9/5/2002, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.85/BNG/2006, DATED 12-10-2007 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BANGALORE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SREEDHAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Sri.U.S.Yogeshkumar, takes notice for respondent. Even though the matters have come up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the matters are taken up for final disposal. Admit. The substantial questions of law at paragraph 4 and 5 of the

4 appeal memo are taken up for consideration. This Court in ITA No.196/2008 disposed off on 6-7-2010 has answered the second question of law against the revenue. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V/S SURESH GUPTA reported in 297 ITR 322 held that the revenue is entitled to levy surcharge under Section 113 of the Act and such levy has been upheld. Since the second question of law is answered against the revenue, the first question of law is not necessary to be answered. In that view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*