Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ramanshree Housing Development Co ... on 26 May, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ' DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF V' '% PRESENT' ' _ " V V_ ' A THE HONBLE MR. = V' THE HON'BLE MR3. JUsTiOE_;B'.v,;vAc§ARAT}iNA I.T.xA.'V1}iO§'6E§§§'2Ot§:£$,L . BETWEEN: 1. THE_,cOM'N1i;9s1ONER'OE'~ INOCSME TAX cENTRA.Lf.O1R(;LE_< . c'.--.R. BUILD£NG,'QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE v jg ,_ « A 2. THE JOENT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL 4. BANGALORE 'C RBUILDING;""§UEENS ROAD APPELLANTS (By. 314:: M GLRTESHAOHALA, 1'-mv.) M/S RAMANASHREE HOUSING , "DEVELOPMENT co PVT LTD NO I6/1, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
{By Sri: N MANOHAR, ADV.) A This I.'i'.A. is filed u/S.260--A of l.'l'.Act E961 agait1:ist'~».vv the order dated O7--10~2005 passed in l'.I~'A.f , A' 745/ Bang/ 2002 for the Assessment Year 1988--89";'--pray'ingl ' to formulate the substantial questions of law and to allow the appeal and set aside theorder passetiby tlnw ITAT, Bangalore in rm No. 745/Bang/2roo2 d'a[te_d I O7--10--2005 & confirm the order passe_dl"--b3.I the ..Appe.llat_e*..VV"
Commissioner confirming the order passed Vby't'Vlthtev._J_Hoint Commissioner of Income Tax, Specital"Range--'~'l,_ Barigalore; in the interest of justice and equity. 2 * 7 This ITA coming on for Patti J., delivered the following - " A. I .o ._instaiqt--«t.a'ppea1l_Taifisesl out of the impugned order dated 7.'1og.42oo5'-passed'"tn"'i*rA.No.745/Bang/2002 on the file oi""the lncorne Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for 2' consi the folloiziling substantial question of law:
ii l'.l~l'ri'j_V\lhether the Tribunal was correct in H "holding that a sum of Rs.i5,72,ooo/-- discovered in the course of search on 24.2.1992 proceeded to delete the same without assessing any cogent reasons after having held that the assessee were not able to explain the source of such payments ?
_'//,4 . -- 3 ~
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent--assessee filed return of income on 29.6.1988 before the Assessing Officer who passed an order on 22.11.89 U/s.i43(3) assessing the total inco1nie_!'l'i.gt Rs.1,33,810/--. On 2.4.1998 notice was isstield Section 148. In response to the said notice 27.3.2001. However, before considaeringlpteplyhi assessee the case was reopened under Secti'on,V148"; on 24.2.92 and there was a search' and has-ei;iu're operation conducted under Sectione~l32 .I:.T.Act. 'HII)tv11'ing the course of search and seizurefithsy some vouchers which unaccounted investment made by Ramanashree Honsirigdldfievelopment Co.Ltd., and the said vouchers were ixnpoiinded from the house of S.Uday 'll"=Shanl%a1f'~,w'ho isllbrother of Sri.S.Shahakshari, Director "'the"-Company. After considering the reply and othelrlhrelevanttinaterial on record, the Assessing Officer has 'x_ppasseo'~~ an order holding that unaccounted investment has Xf'heVen"~«made by the assessee and therefore, an amount of 8 Rs.i5,72,000/-- was added to the income of the assessee. Assailing the correctness of the order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent herein had filed an appeal in ITA.No.188/DC12(2)/CIT(A)III/01-02 on the file of /n/» i _4...
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}--IIl, Bangalore. The said matter had come up before the First Appellate Authority, who in turn after considering the order' Assessing Authority and other relevant material ' held that these were cash payment, made Rx for the contract work done by him.' 'jtixne disbelieved the theory of thesewouclhers being --'as are' guarantee for timely completion:uofV_woprk .(:on£ihned the order passed by the dated 26.3.2002.
Being aggrieved by the ioirdefpassed "Assessing Officer and the First respondent herein had filed forthe assessment year 1988-
89. pp Ii1con1e."'l5a.¥l.lAppellate Tribunal committed grave errorinuchauiesvs irregtilarity in allowing the appeal filed '3"«_,by-'i.the.A'-ev.respondent'""herein without assigning any valid reasons'; »v44Vl"l1erjefore, the appellants have preferred this appeal appropriate reliefs.
it ~ Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Aimpngned order is liable to be set aside as it is not a 'speaking order and it does not contain any reason nor finding of fact has been recorded and the conclusion arrived is not in consonance with the discussion made in the /4/ fr preceding paragraphs of the order. Therefore, he submitted that the order impugned is vitiated.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended y impugned order passed by the ._due"
consideration of the material available' 'o:1"«re'cord"an.d'no.' error has been committed in passing thelsaid order.' '
5. We have heard the learnied_ 'counsel for _,l5oth the parties. The only point .arisei§:{foreiirjconsideration is:
Whether the impugned by the Tribunal.is siusjtainabl-ep in _lay_V?l
6. Afterglcarefull of the order impugned, it is rnanitestpon face Vof the same that the Tribunal has l"corri'Initte:d error much less irregularity in passing the '--orderp" the relevant material on record. It is sign.i_ficant note that the Tribunal has not referred the l.u""'-__V""order at passed by the Assessing Authority or the '' .Com_n1issioner of Income Tax, who have recorded concurrent : Wfinding of fact after physical evaluation of material and after affording opportunity to the parties. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the Tribunal. On the contrary,' the Tribunal has specifically stated in the #:/ y-_.
matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of this Judgement. Sd/-3