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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/198/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01017922200827 August 2012Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a similar substantial question of law was previously decided against the revenue by this court. While the Supreme Court upheld the levy of surcharge under Section 113, this did not necessitate answering the first question of law.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Income Tax Department against the orders of the ITAT concerning the block period from 1/4/1996 to 9/5/2002. The department sought to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue was entitled to levy surcharge under Section 113 of the Act and the implications of a prior High Court decision on a substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 113,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV) AND : M/S SAGAR CHEMICALS, NO.26/8, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADV)

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.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV) AND : SMT.CHANDRIKA SHARMA NO.26/8, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADV)

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/-*

More judgments on Section 113

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 113 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →