Mr Peter Caddy vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 1876 Kant

                            1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                        AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                I.T.A. NO.865/2017

BETWEEN:

MR. PETER CADDY
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE OSWAL CADDY,
R/AT NO.3, PURVA PARKWAY,
NO.10, HALLS ROAD,
RICHARD PARK,
BANGALORE-560 056.
                                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT.PRATHIBH R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME-TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1),
BMTC BUILDING,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560 095.
                                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
                             2




     THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME
TAX APPEAL ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER
DATED:14/07/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1576/BANG/2016,
FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PRAYING TO (i)
FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED
ABOVE (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DATED:14.07.2017 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.1576/BANG/2016 FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; AND (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER
SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


    THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee against the

order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal.

2. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to

the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted

by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2019 on

the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether even in the case of search in the case of the Appellant under Section 132 of the Act when no material related to the impugned addition for the relevant year was found and seized, the assessment under Section 153A of the Act was sustainable in the case of the Appellant for relevant year?

2. When contemporary materials found would show that investment was made by the other party who was associated with the Appellant, the addition made under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of the Appellant was sustainable when there was no contrary material to support the case of the revenue?

3. Whether the orders of the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were sustainable since there was gross violation of principles of natural justice when the Appellant was not provided an opportunity which was specifically sought for to make submissions against the impugned addition

on merits and in such circumstances whether the impugned addition was sustainable?"

3. The relevant extract of the order passed by

the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08

reads as under:

"20. So far as the Assessment Year 2007-08 is concerned, since there is no addition by the Assessing Officer therefore there is no grievance of the assessee on merits."

4. When a query was put to the learned counsel

for the assessee, whether any addition has been made

by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

08, learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted

that no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer

for the assessment year 2007-08 and the findings

recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 20 of its order is

correct.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing

survives for adjudication in this appeal.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA