The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 89 Kant

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                               AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

                    I.T.A. NO.344/2014
BETWEEN:

1.     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
       CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING
       QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.

2.     THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
       CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), C.R. BUILDING
       QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.
                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD.,
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
BANGALORE ROAD
CHALLAKERE-577522.
                                            ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SHANKAR A, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
    MR. M. LAVA, ADV.)
                           ---

     THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,
1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN ITA
NO.1553/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07,
PRAYING TO:
     (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
STATED ABOVE.
                            2



     (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1553/BANG/2013
DATED 13/02/2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),
BANGALORE.

     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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)

has been preferred 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 24.11.2015 on the following substantial

questions of law:

"(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessing officer did not make any independent enquiry, whereas, in fact it was the assessing officer who had initiated enquiry and requested the sales tax Department to investigate the existence of the three purchase parties at Solapur?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no independent enquiry made by the assessing officer except for the report of the sales tax authorities, which cannot find basis for coming into conclusion of entire amount of purchases being bogus and considering the facts the tribunal has ordered for disallowance of only 20% of the purchasers from three entities for each of the assessment years involved?"

For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment

passed today in I.T.A.No.342/2014, the substantial

questions of law framed in this appeal are answered in

the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The

impugned order passed by the tribunal is hereby

quashed and the matter is remitted to the tribunal to

decide the issue afresh in the light of observations made

in this judgment.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE ss