COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SADGURU EDUCATION TRUST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015

Present

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B MANOHAR

Income Tax Appeals 433 c/w 434 / 2014

Between 1 Commissioner of Income Tax

Revenue Buildings

Mysore

2 Income Tax Officer

Ward 1, Madikeri

Appellants

(By Sri E I Sanmathi, Adv.)

And

Sri Sadguru Education Trust ‘Sriniketan’ Near Private Bus Stand Madikeri 571 201

Respondent

(By Sri K K Chythanya, Adv.)

Appeals are filed under S.260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order dated 9.5.2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bangalore in ITA 715/2013 & 716/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07.

Appeals coming on for hearing this day, Vineet Saran J, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

W have heard Sri E I Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellant as well as Sri K K Chytanya, learned counsel for respondent and have perused the record.

These appeals were admitted on 2.6.2015 on the following substantial questions of law

1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessments for the AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07 in the case of the assessee as invalid as the Assessing Officer had not made additional whatsoever in respect of the income referred to in the reasons recorded for issue of notice under section 148?

2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in annulling the assessments made in the case of the assessee for the AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07 holding that the impugned additions made in the reassessment proceedings were beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the questions involved in these appeals are covered by the decision of this Court dated 1.7.2015 rendered in ITA 504/2013 in the case of N Govindaraju Vs Income Tax Officer wherein the matter has been decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

In view of the aforesaid judgment in the case of N Govindaraju (supra), the two substantial questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assesee. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not decided the matter on merits, the same is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision, on merits of the case.

Appeals stand disposed of.

Sd/-

Judge

Sd/-

Judge an