COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI V.M. CHANDRE GOWDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/617/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01047016201309 September 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had been given effect to by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were rendered academic.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition of unaccounted cash. The assessee argued that the ITAT's order had been given effect to, rendering the appeal academic.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of unaccounted cash and whether the finding regarding the old woman's income was against human probability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.617 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)

AND:

SHRI. V.M. CHANDRE GOWDA NO.415, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE PAN AAHPC0751H. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12-07-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1158/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO:

I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12-07-2013 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO.1158/BANG/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Lava, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.06.2014 to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and not perverse in its findings in deleting the addition of

unaccounted cash assessed substantively by the Assessing Authority in the hands of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law and not perverse in its findings in holding that an old woman is capable of earning such huge income, that too only at this point of time, which is against the human probability as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II vs. Durga Prasad (82 IR 540)?”.

3.

When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the assessee has placed on record the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, by which he has given effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have been rendered

academic. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →