Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayantilal J Jain vs Income Tax Officer on 22 September, 2008
Bench: V.G Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
E» INCOME fAx.dEEIcER
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KEEEAEAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMEEEVEEGEEEE2
PRESENT "" ' :2 x V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E,Q:SfiBHEHiTE_;u H
THE HON'BLE MR.JESTICEEEQE,SAEYAEAEAXAEE
INCOME TAX EEPEAL E0;éiiZ20Q4
BETWEEN: .», _-wEf= ' . ' V' "
SR1 JAYANTILEfi4é§dRIfi§ __ 'W
DHANALAXMI;ENEEREE1sEs;_*«_V
NEW GABBUR,,?;B;§OADf, R'a
HUBLI ,. 1111 »_
1 . A?FELLANT
(By Sri E sHANKEE;.AEy};~')
*WAED"1_i3JEfx_*E
HUBE1 .*E'
'." RESPONDENT
I {By Sri M V SHESHACHALA, ADV.,)
n ETHIVS I.T.A FILED U/S. 260A OF THE INCOME
* 'TAX Ear, 1961 ARISING ouw OF ORDER DATED
E19,12;2ao3 EAESEE IN ITA NO. 599/BANG/2003 FOR
=_ "THE; AESESSEEET YEAR 1998~99 PRAYING THAT THIS
;»EoE*BLE COURE' MAY BE PLBASED TO FORMULATE THE
-_ 'FSUBSTANTIAL QUESTIDN OF LAW STATEB TfiEREIN AND
"«"ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER or THE
TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO. 599/BANG/2003 DATED
19.12.2003 ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE
RSSESSMENT YEAR 1998~99 ETC.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS SEE,
SABHEHIE 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is filed being ' aggrieved by the order passed byfthe inoome&taxLI Appellate Tribunal, Banealere IBenchh 'C' win ITA.No.599/Banga/2003_ dated fl19;Z2.2dO3-_for§ the assessment year 199e%99':can:ire5§g, the order passed by the Commissioner 'Iof< 'Income~tax (Appeals),--Hnhii,7who1inturn had confirmed the order paeaed.byKthe'asaessing authority, wherein the transaction deciared in the regular returns KVAaaIfihexfilaied investment under Section 69 of the ':n¢gee»tag a¢:,t1ge1.
IQIZ. The shbstantial questions of law arises sfor our determination in this appeal are, ._ 1} Whether the finding of the Income~Tax "Appellate Tribunal that the sale transaction as revealed in the regular returns filed are taxable under Section 69 of the Income~tax Act, is perverse or arbitrary for non consideration of the material fact as to whether the goods that ye are sold under the transactions relied upon by the assesse are the same goods which"had', been declared under the applicationw~filed. » under Voluntary Declaration of "«Znéome ty' Scheme 1997, which was acceptefi why, the * revenue? _ie_ 2} What order?
3. The above substantial anestione efi law have been answered in ITA.No?l86[20d4*arising on identieal facts and law decrees a§*22.9.2oos by a detailed order pronounced separatelyt
4. For fthe, reasons" assigned 'in the said appeal}_I$Arhe;1$6X2eQ4,_which is applicable on all fours to the faets cf the present case, we answer the substantial question of law No.1 in ' haffireativeyand sfihstantial question of law No.2 ias per final erder and pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order passed by ~theViincome-tax Appellate Tribunal} Bangalore * Bench 'C' in ITA.No.599/Bangalore/2093 for u",assessment year 1998~99 confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Incomewtax Hubli, who inturn had confirmed the order passed by the hfi Assesssing Officer, Hubli is set aside and'£he matter is remitted to the Assessing Offieer<fQrei, passing fresh orders in the lighfiiflefrfifiez-E observations made in the bOdYj&§ the erderge _ Nd/