M R PADMAVATHY TRUST vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
WTA/12/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01053164201811 December 2019Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the issue of reopening the assessment to be academic as the revenue had not appealed the tribunal's order granting relief. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant trust is aggrieved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's rejection of its cross-objections. The tribunal had granted substantial relief to the assessee, but did not address the issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act for reopening the assessment, and whether the tribunal erred in not dealing with this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

W.T.A.NO.12/2018

BETWEEN:

M.R. PADMAVATHY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI. M.R. JAYARAM GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA MATHIKERE, BENGALURU – 560 054. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. S. ANNAMALAI, AND SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 27A OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

AS STATED ABOVE ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH BANGALORE IN CO.NO.43/BANG/2018 ARISING OUT OF WTA 24/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 DATED: 17.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

We have heard Sri.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent.

2.

We find that grounds urged, issue involved and substantial question raised in this appeal are all academic in nature, inasmuch as substantial relief which appellant had sought for before tribunal has been granted. However, issue relating to right of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for re-opening the assessment has

not been dealt by the tribunal, though assessee had filed cross-objections. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of rejection of cross-objections by tribunal.

3.

Sri.A.Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant is correct in contending that in the event of revenue were to come in appeal against the order of the tribunal granting relief to the assessee, appellant herein should be permitted to pursue its grievance with regard to the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice for re-opening.

4.

The issue relating to re-opening of assessment being academic in nature and as on date there being no appeal filed by the revenue against grant of relief to assessee, we do not propose to go into the right of Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment particularly in the backdrop of revenue having not filed any appeal against the order of the tribunal whereunder substantial relief to the assessee has already been

granted. As such, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the assessee to revive this appeal in the event of revenue preferring or filing appeal against the order of tribunal dated 17.08.2018. SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 17

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →