Karnataka High Court
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35616-DB
ITA No. 261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.261 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE
NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE
VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX
VISHVESHWARANGAR
Digitally
signed by MYSURU - 570 008.
BHARATHI S
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
M/S SREE SHIVALINGESHWARA
ARECANUT TRADERS
21, L BLOCK, APMC YARD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204
PAN. AALFS 3372E
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G S NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35616-DB
ITA No. 261 of 2022
THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF
INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
07/12/2021 PASSED IN ITA NO. 142/BANG/2021, FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN II.
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA
NO. 142/BANG/2021 DATED 07/12/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2015-2016 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF
THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU.III. TO PASS SUCH OTHER
SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35616-DB
ITA No. 261 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Ac t') questioning the correctness
or otherwise of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Bengaluru in ITA No.142/Bang/2021 dated
07.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (Annexure-C).
2. The appeal was admitted on 06.09.2022 to examine
the questions of law raised by the appellants which are
extracted below:
1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in
nature in holding that the conditions prescribed for
passing order under section 263 of the Act are not
satisfied when the CIT has given elaborate findings to
demonstrate that the order passed by assessing
authority was prejudicial as well as erroneous order"?
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing appeal
preferred by assessee by setting aside order passed
under section 263 of the Act ignoring that assessing
authority had not derived gross profits from unaccounted
sales and purchases recorded in seized documents and
NC: 2024:KHC:35616-DB
assessing authority further failed to make proper enquiry
before making additions"?
3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal's order setting aside order passed
under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessing
authority was correct in determining the unaccented
income on the basis of GP rate in disclosed transactions
as per regular books of accounts ignoring findings of
Commissioner of Income Tax"?.
3. This appeal was filed on 23.05.2022 and Monetary
value involved is Rs.64,67,618/-. Subsequent to filing of the
appeal, Circular bearing No.5/2024 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-
ITJ(PT.)] dated 15.3.2024 is issued under Section 265(A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribing monetary limit and the
exceptions to prefer an appeal before the High Court.
4. In view of the above Circular, the above appeal
would not be maintainable since monetary value involved in
this appeal is less than rupees one crore. Therefore, the above
appeal would not survive for consideration and the same is
dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:35616-DB
5. In view of the above, the substantial questions of
law raised in the appeal are kept open to be considered in an
appropriate case.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SMJ
