Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 vs Smt Hema S Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 1015 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                  I.T.A. NO.260 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.     PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
       BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
       CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE.
                                           .... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W
    MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

SMT. HEMA S. REDDY
NO.670, 6TH CROSS
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560034
PAN: ABGPR1421H.
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,
    MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,)
                           ---

      THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 PASSED
IN ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-
2007, PRAYING TO:
                                2



      (i) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR
SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY
THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.
      (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016
PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL
PROCEEDINGS NO ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2006-2007, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.

     THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING,               THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has

been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal

pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was

admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated

05.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the re-assessment order by holding that the assessing authority had not supplied the reasons for re-recording even though the assessee was made aware of the crux of the case through letter and assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing and assessee never objected to re-assessment proceedings?"

2. When the matter was taken up today, learned

counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial

question of law framed by this Court has already been

answered by the Supreme Court against the revenue in 'PRL.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. V.RAMAIAH'

(2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 202 (SC). The aforesaid

statement of fact could not be disputed by the learned

counsel for the revenue.

3. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law of the

Supreme Court, the substantial question of law framed by

this Court is answered against the revenue and in favour of

the assessee.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV