Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Abdul Kareem Ladsab Telgi on 9 June, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 97" DAY OF JUNE, 2010 :PRESENT: 'I'I*IE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PA1fz§' ' A'-' AND HIE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A ; A 7 I.T.A.No. 135 OFZQQQ 5; ' BETWEEN: 1.
The Commissioner of income Tax " -- C.R.Buiidin?I- ' ' "
Queerfs roa:d',._ _ _ Bangalore. *
2. The A,ssista1':ifCéomrfiiséioner of Income--TaX "
Centfa1_ Circle. ~ 1 (1)3 C,R.Bu:1:nng,,,---
éggueerrs road, « ..... 14 V A . . Appeiiants {By '3¥_i.AA M4.Xz*.,,,Av_Se.éf;h'é1chala, Advocate) V A " Abdul Kareem Ladsab Telgi, ' Es/I/s.Metro Corporation, No.12, Live in Style Apartments, Pottery Road.
,»:.~'-5 Bangalore.
Now lodged in Yerawada Jail, Pune.
... Responde1n.t'»s.
This ITA is filed U/s. 260A of the lncom;e...ilfalf{_' 1961, praying to formulate the substantial question oft:"ia\i,;_._p allow the appeal and set aside the orders gpalssedfby the» Income--'l'ax Appellate Tribunal,_MBangalore;--f_"in" V7ITA No.1 142/Bang/2007 dated 17.1o:,'2o08* and -icontlrin the order passed by the Appellate Commissiorrer 'eonfirr:1ing~--.tl*ie.:
order passed by the Assistant _Commissio_ner of ineorrle ' Central Circle--l(1} Bangalore." '_ This ITA coming on tloiis day, N .K.PA'I'IL J., delivered the following} unnemsxfifd;
This 1appe_lla;ntsV ismlarising out of the unpugned_t&aerfidahxf;17;u12008 }mu5ed in ITA No.ll42l/Bangvf Income Tax Appellate 'l'ribI.;§gnali,. Bangalore, for consideration of the following A ' - ._ tiuestion of law:
_ Q" -.,(i) V ' '."§WIr}ether the Tribunal was correct in A cond.ori.--ing the delay in filing the appeal before the "Appellate Commissioner by more than two years when the reason assigned by the assessee that the it ._assessrnent order copy was not served on him was found to be false by relying on orders passed by the Tribunal in other assessment years instead of independently examining the reasons assigned in the facts of the prese case'?
2. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants for some time.
3. During the course of his submission,-.'_learned~.
counsel for the appellants has fairly submsittedgg the -« subject matter involved in this leaseiisfj. by the judgment passed byfth__is dated 2010 in 1.r.A.No.139/2oo9 {'.['_he" 'Commissioner of Income Tax ai:d.V:"anotI:;'e:.r' Kareem Ladsab Te1gi);'Therefore--,ifized'submitted' that, following the saidl"'ju_t:i'gmef:;t',« the» instant appeal may also be dismissed'; _ '
4. ..aboxr:e'V«.subu1'rx~issi0n made by learned Counsel = for appellants'i's**'pIaced on record. C' ifiyiew of the submission made by learned C"-..e._"-.counsel_for appellants, the instant Income Tax appeal is following the judgment passed by this Court C _pd_ated 27th May 2010 in I.T.A.No.139/2009[The X Z Commissioner of Income Tax and another_...Vs. Abdul Kareem Ladsab Telgi} and for 2 stated therein.
tsn*