THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI S N RAVI KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/64/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01020692201524 March 2016Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the issue was covered by a Madras High Court decision relied upon by the Tribunal. The court also held that the order was not prejudicial to the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order directing the CIT(A) to verify tax payment and admit the assessee's appeal. The assessee had not paid taxes but the Revenue had recovered the amount through coercive proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the CIT(A) to verify tax payment and admit the appeal when no tax was paid by the assessee, and if the ingredients of Section 249(4)(a) were met.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 249(4)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

I.T.A.No.62 OF 2015 C/w I.T.A.No. 63 OF 2015 & I.T.A.No.64 OF 2015

Between:

1.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Central Circle, C R Building,

Queens road, Bangalore.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Central Circle, C R Building,

Queens road, Bangalore. ... Common Appellants

(By Sri K V Aravind, Advocate)

And:

Shri S.N.Ravi Kumar, 401, Stanberry Court, No.12, 60 ft road, Sanjayanagar, Bangalore – 560 092. … Common Respondent

(By Sri S V Ravishankar, Advocate)

I.T.A.No.62/2015 is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 19.09.2014 passed in ITA No.1300/Bang/2013, for the assessment year 2006-2007 praying this Hon’ble Court to formulate the substantial questions of law stated above and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA

2 No.1300/Bang/2013 dated:19.09.2014 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore.

I.T.A.No.63/2015 is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 19.09.2014 passed in ITA No.1302/Bang/2013, for the assessment year 2008-2009 praying this Hon’ble Court to formulate the substantial questions of law stated above and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1302/Bang/2013 dated:19.09.2014 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore.

I.T.A.No.64/2015 is filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 19.09.2014 passed in ITA No.1301/Bang/2013, for the assessment year 2007-2008 praying this Hon’ble Court to formulate the substantial questions of law stated above and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.1301/Bang/2013 dated:19.09.2014 confirming the order of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore.

These ITAs, coming on for admission, this day, JAYANT PATEL J., delivered the following:

ORDER

Present appeals have been preferred by the appellant- Revenue by raising following substantial question of law:

1.

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to verify the claim of payment of taxes on the declared income and admit the appeal of the assessee in a

3 case where no tax has been paid by the assessee but the Revenue has recovered the amount through coercive proceedings and when the ingredients of Section 249(4)(a) are not satisfied by the assessee to maintain the appeal before the CIT and case law relied upon by the Tribunal do not apply to the facts of the present case?

2.

We have heard Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.S.V. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3.

We may record that discussion by the Tribunal in the impugned order is at paragraph 9. The Tribunal thereafter has issued directions at paragraph 10.

4.

As such, the issue is already covered by the decision of the Madras High Court, which has been referred to by the Tribunal. Further, in any case, the order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the Revenue. In the circumstances, we do not find any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. Hence all the appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →