THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINI MUTHOOTU MUTUAL FUNDS LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.435/2006 BETWEEN : 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDINGS KOTTAYAM. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – II C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS ( By Sri E SANMATHI INDRAKUMAR, ADV.) AND : M/S MINI MUTHOOTU MUTUAL FUNDS LTD KOZHENCHERRY PAPHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA. ..RESPONDENT ( By SMT. RUKMINI MENON, ADV.) This ITA is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.622/COCH/1994 dated

2 7.1.2005 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner. This ITA coming on for hearing this day, K.SREEDHAR RAO J delivered the following: JUDGMENT The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT, which remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the contentions of the assessee. The assessee, aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the meantime, the impugned assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Central Circle- II, Bangalore. The file of the assessee was transferred to the ACIT, Ernakulam, who was seized of the matter. When the matter was pending before the ACIT, Ernakulam, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order reversing the order of the first Appellate Authority and deleted the addition. The Revenue aggrieved by the said order has filed this present petition. 2. The ACIT, Ernakulam has passed a second assessment order. For the period in question, the additions proposed have been deleted. Counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in (2009) 313 ITR 373 (Ker) in the case of Mini Muthoottu Mutual Funds Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Income-tax. In view of the second assessment order, the contentions raised in this

3 present appeal does not deserve any consideration. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. The questions of law framed in this appeal are not answered in the circumstances. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm.