EVE DESIGN AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA No.66/2015 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., #148, Surveyors Street Basavangudi Bangalore-560 004 PAN NO.AABCD3880H. ….Respondent (By Sri. A. Shankar and Sri. M. Lava, Advocates)

This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax Act 1961, to set aside the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.151/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, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore.

This Appeal coming on for Orders this day,N. K.Patil, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the Revenue questioning the correctness of the Order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.151/Bang/2014 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner, confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1[2], Bangalore, to consider the following substantial questions 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 retuned 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?.”

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submitted that the instant appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed following the Judgment of this Court dated 11.12.2015 passed in ITA No.239/2015 in the case of ‘M/s. Mookambika Associates Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another’ as identical questions of law are involved in the said Judgment. Therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal may be dismissed, answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

In reply, learned Counsel for the Appellants Sri. K.V. Aravind, has not disputed the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

The instant appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed following the Judgment of this Court dated 11.12.2015 passed in ITA No.239/2015 in the case of ‘M/s. Mookambika Associates Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another’ and for the reasons stated therein, answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-