Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 CRP No. 290/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 290 OF 2018 (TAX) BETWEEN: M/S. CEDAR HILLS HOSPITALITY (P) LTD TOWER "B", 9TH FLOOR DIAMOND DISTRICT AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ZIAULLA SHERIFF S/O ABDUL GAFFAR SHERIFF AGED 77 YEARS …PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. BALRAM R. RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, AGA)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, 1957 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 PASSED IN STA NO.1030/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka
2 CRP No. 290/2018
08.02.2013 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.KAIT/APPELLANT-33/2012-13 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) MALNAD DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC. THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
This civil revision petition by the appellant in STA No.1030/2013 challenging the judgment dated December 7, 2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, has been admitted to consider the following questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in restricting the wages at Rs. 17,46,990 /- as against Rs. 29,07,688/- claimed by the Petitioner? 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in assessing the land holding of the Petitioner at 49.35 Acres as against 102.26 Acres as claimed by the Petitioner? 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of payments of Rs. 13,20,083/- made by the sister concerns on behalf of the Petitioner?”
3 CRP No. 290/2018
Heard Shri Balram Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned AGA for the State. 3. Shri Balram Rao urged the following contentions: • Firstly, that the Assessing Officer, in Para 11(x) of the Assessment Order dated 08.02.2013, has recorded a finding that assessee has not produced any documents to show that assessee owns 102 Acres of land. According to him, this finding is erroneous because in the same Para, the Assessing Officer has admitted that assessee has produced a copy of the mutation register; and • Secondly, that in the subsequent year namely, 2012-13, the Revenue has accepted that the assessee owns 102 Acres of land.
In support of his contentions, he has made available a copy of the Assessment Order for the year 2012-13.
4 CRP No. 290/2018
Shri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned AGA, in his usual fairness, does not dispute the Assessment Order for the year 2012-13. 6. We have perused the said order. The Assessing Officer has accepted the ownership of the assessee in respect of 102 Acres of land.
Therefore, the findings recorded in the Assessment Order for the year 2011-12, on the premise that the assessee has not produced documents is perverse and unsustainable. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Shivamogga, and the KAT1 have confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the said orders are also not sustainable. 7. In view of the above, the following; ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition is allowed;
(ii) Order dated 07.12.2017 in STA
No.1030/2013 passed by the KAT, Bengaluru;
1 Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
5 CRP No. 290/2018
Order dated 08.02.2013 in Appeal No.KAIT/AP-
33/2012-13 passed by the Joint Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Shivamogga; and
Order dated 31.08.2012 in case No.241/2011-12
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (Agriculture Income Tax),
Chikamagaluru, are set-aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted on the file of the
Assessment Officer for reconsideration of the
matter; and
(iv) In view of remittal of the matter, questions
of law are not answered. 8. At this juncture, Shri Balram Rao submitted that since this court has remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer by accepting the assessee's contention that assessee owns 102 Acres of land, third question of law pertaining to cultivation expenditure may also be remitted for fresh consideration. 9. Shri Neeralgi, learned AGA, in his usual fairness, does not refute the said submission.
6 CRP No. 290/2018
In view of the above, since fresh assessment has been directed, the Assessing Officer shall also consider the issues in all three questions of law raised in this revision petition.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52