Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
:PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
I.T.A.NO. 65 OF 2015 Between:
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. …Appellants (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
And :
M/s. Davanam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., No.148, Surveyors Street, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004. Pan No.AABCD3880H
…Respondent (By Sri. A. Shankar & Sri. M. Lava, Advocates) *** This ITA is filed U/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to formulate the substantial question of law, allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 149/Bang/2014 dated 28/08/2014 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Bangalore.
This ITA coming on for Orders, this day, N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following: :J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the revenue is arising out of the impugned order dated 28/08/2014, passed in ITA No.149/Bang/2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for considering the following question of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a direction to verify the claim of payment of taxes on the declared income and admit the appeal of the assessee in a case where no valid grounds have been pleaded by the assessee for non-payment of tax on the returned income?
Whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal is erroneous as it would render the provision of section 249(4)(a) otiose?
Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in relying on the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of D. Komalakshmi Vs. DCIT when the facts are different?
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, at the outset submitted that, three substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in this appeal do not arise for the assessment year 2007-2008 and therefore, this appeal may be dismissed as devoid of merits. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent. 5. The submission made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties is placed on record. 6. The instant appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE tsn*