Sri.M.R.Kodandaram (Huf) vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1430 Kant

                                1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                          PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                            AND

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                   I.T.A. NO.453 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

SRI. M.R. KODANDARAM (HUF)
REP. BY KARTHA
SRI. M.R. KODANDARAM
GOKULA HOUSE
GOKULA, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE-560054.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNESL FOR
    SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 6 (3)(1), BMTC BUILDING
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560095.
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)
                             ---
      THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX
ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.05.2016 PASSED
IN C.O. NO.221/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO.1170/BANG/2015) FOR
THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO:
      (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS
STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE
APPELLANT.
                             2



     (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO
THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ITAT IN CO NO.221/BANG/2015 (IN ITA 1170/BANG/2015)
DATED 27.05.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
     (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax

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

has been preferred by the assessee. 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 22.11.2017 on the following substantial

questions of law:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in stating that there are no effective grounds other than supporting the order of the CIT(A) in the cross objection filed by the appellant which is contrary to the and grounds raised before the Tribunal and consequently perverse on the facts and circumstances of the case?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the mandatory conditions to assume jurisdiction under section 148 does not exist and consequently ought to have also quashed the reassessment proceedings on the facts of the case?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not adjudicating the legal ground of reopening which goes to the root of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case?

(iv) Whether the Tribunal in law ought to have held that as no notice under section 143(2) of the act has been issued in time, consequently the order of assessment is bad in law and without jurisdiction and liable to be cancelled on the facts of the case?

2. For the reasons assigned by us in the

judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.452/2016, the order

dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Tribunal is quashed

and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to adjudicate

the issue whether the notice issued under Section

143(2) of the Act, to the assessee is barred by limitation

and is contrary to provisions of the Act. Needless to

state that the Tribunal itself shall decide the issue within

a period of two months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order passed today. The parties

shall be at liberty to raise all legal contentions with

regard to the aforesaid issue.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE ss