Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
I.T.A. NO.201 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, RANGE-12, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. MYSORE MINERALS LTD., NO.39, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-1. ... 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 18-12-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.955/BANG/2011 AND 971/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:
I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18-12-2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.955/BANG/2011 AND 971/BANG/2011.
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 appellant has entered appearance through video conferencing. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel along with Mr.M.Lava, learned counsel for the assessee.
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. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2013, had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “1) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to make an additional claim that is not claimed in
the return of income and the Appellate Authority has power to consider such new claim not made in the return of income which in the assessee’s case was filed belatedly, while the clear provisions of Section 139(5) allow a revised return to be filed if the original return has been filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1)? 2) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition made on the basis of difference between the sale price recorded in the books and the prevailing market price which is also supported by the MMTC rate list, ignoring the fact that the price of Iron Ore is subject to revision on the basis of market fluctuation and the MMTC rate list is a bench mark?”
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the first substantial question of law involved in this appeal has been rendered academic in view of subsequent events and in view of order dated 13.11.2013 passed in ITA No.172/2014. It is also submitted that the second substantial question of law is covered by a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2017 passed in ITA No.146/2013 and connected matters.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is evident that the first substantial question of law, on account of subsequent developments, has been rendered academic, whereas the second substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue vide order dated 22.03.2017 passed by a Bench of this Court in ITA No.146/2013 and connected matters.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE