Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Abdul Kareem Ladsab Telgi on 2 July, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE mar; COURT Q? KARNATAKAAT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2% DAY OF JULY, 2010 PRESENT THE HOSPBLE MR. JUSTICE NJ; }fATIL .-- TI-IE HONBLE rvazs. JUSTICE S;v,_NASAT1§AT§Sv5""' §.'I'.A No.13S /zo0u'"9*vw.:._V'?v' V 0 V BETWEEN: _ V 'A 1' ;. THE COMMISSIONER 01+" 0 <:.R.BSILmNS, ' ' '= - - QUEENS BANGALORE; '0 ' 3*.) THE ASSI_S.TANT"cc33;yI;\r:.*§"0f;4*'1N<:_Q1y1E TAX, C'ENTR,Ai.,_ c:r;c:.;:>_1« I 1), CR I3U1L13:r«:S;T QHSESS ROAD BAENTGALORE ' ~ - ...APPELLAN'I'S (ByyS:'i: M V ADV.) SR1"ABBSL';_3<:2xREEM LADSAB TELGI. M/'S. METRO C(.')R?ORA'i'}ON, T No.12, 'LIVE IN STYLE APARTMENTS, POTTERY ROAB. V. BANGALORE. ' ..Ne\v* LODGED IN YERAWAIJA JAIL, PUNE. " RESPONDENT
This ITA is filed u/S.26+0~A of 'I.'I'.Act, 1961 against the Order dated 17-10-2008 passed in ITA No.1141/BANG/2007, for the Assessment Year 2000~ 2001. praying ta formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, and to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the §'I'A'I' Bangalore in N£}.1141/BANG/200?, dated 1'?~1{)-2008, ané _.'C£}ilfi1*m the order of the Appellate Commissioner (:onfi:~'1'r"1_'i.r.1'__g tilde order passed. by the Assistant Commissioneffief "
Tax, Central Circle»~1[1), Bangalore, in theV__:i:s.1_teres_t of justice and equity.
This ITA coming en forla'.AtE.zriissi6npA' »t,l:1is"
N.K. Patil J., delivered the f'ollowifi"g_:V This appeal is ciireeterri e3.'der impugned dated 17.10.2OG§;:e1'pas;sed iii 1*rA:}N'oV..111§41/Bang/2007 on the file of :'é,he{.j:;;_§$'¢$'ii:e ifalxifkppielleteTribunal, Bangalore, for considering the qtreeltviflon of law:
i) Whether .1;he_ Veorrect in condoning Vth_eidelay_ the appeal V beforegthe App'cl.latVe Cemmissioner by V'm91.é.-_{}1eiz twp yeariéiiiiizilen the reasen it};-e assessee that the cupy was not serveci on him was to be false by relying ordersfi passed by the Tribunal in
2..dt.l1er'=.._aeeessment years instead. of '_i_p~_i11'"-zlelpejzlcieniilgv examining the reasene .l"'V..zg$$§igned in the facts of the present Vcase'?
_'///
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. During the course of S1i§}211iSSiI§}fx,' ".1f1€ submitted that the instant agpeai may be _d;i'$?pr:i.$a§? foliowing the Judgement passed in ITA.Ng~;--1t3:§.,s? 27.5.2010 for the reasons stated :£he!:".€§_i'I3:}. h'
3. The said suhmisaicm is._ §'jei*.a{:c:<:i."az1vre{:V:)1"i:i_:"i:nd'°t}:€" V instant appeal stanés giismis$.e.ct:'f-:2_1I(33ving thss:_AAJ;;§1gement dated 27.5.2011} passéd 2.009 and for the 3*£:a50ns stated ii'3f;emi_:1;."' Orderied a-i3Q<$fding'§"j;3;' V' Sd/-7 EEFDGE Sd/«if JUDGE