Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Ltd on 21 July, 2008
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
:N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALcé&ffi
DATED THIS THE zlfifény §fvJULfi 25fié"'5
v»_§RE3EN%f*' ' :
THE HON'BLE Mé[€UéT:§§ Q Q $A$JUNATH
, hW %gD_ '.V ._
THE H@fifgfifi5m§sgq§sfi§cfi;ay§HNAGARATHNA
~-:3 *¥§§§;Nd.396¢é0o4
2. THE aoMMiS$:QNE§*0F INCOME TAX
.'Bf ;.
;c.R.BUILbIwG,*QUEENs RGAD
»fimm@mmm»H, .....
u.TaE»$©iNT COMMISSIONER OF
Tzmcgmakrax, ASSESSMENTS
. SPECIAE RANGE~5, C R BUELDENG
r_Q¥EENS RGAD, BANGALORE
V'l}{BY
. A??ELL%NTS
ySRE M V SESHACHALR, ADV.,)
'H *.M§fi3UNATH'.J bEzivERED THE FOLLGWING:
a 'thg étder paased by the Income Tax Appellate
$fibunal, S&ngalore in ITA. No.8l(Bang}/2001
"'"dated 28.1.2004 for the assessment year 1997~
AND
M/S.KARNATAKR SOAPS AND! «
DETERGENTS LTD., _mV,_.
BANGALORE PUNE HIGHWAYV 'xj
BANGALORE~l
RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 v{&AyAKUMAR{Ab9aTiLf_§fiv.,)
TEES :@g is §rLEa p/3 EGUA OF THE INCGME
TAX ,a$T;V,i§6;. A§:$iN€-wdUT GE ORDER DATES
2a.1}2o04 "9AsSEQ'»iw, ITA. No.81/BANG/2001 yea
THE ASSESSMEQT YEAR 1§97«98 AND BTC.,
';"THIsVzT3"CoMING ON FQR HEARING THIS DAY,
J U D G M E N T
' ?hiS appeal is by the revenue challemging {V -3- 98 wherein, the tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}~V} Bangalore dated 20.1l.2QG§; who had reversed the order passed by theieeSeeei:§.e officer. _,e_
2. The revenue dxhes *:formdietedH5 theii following two gueetiQeer'ef .Iaw_ for our consideratien;Ve* '"l, xWheteer'tee tribunal was correct in "_heldifi§ that the provisions of Sick d*industries Companies {Special %";VErov:eions Act,' 1985} everridee the itprovieions of Income Tax Act and therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is net mainteinable as relief under Section %l{1) of the fiat has been given under the scheme framed by BEFR.
84V f€A$éf Whether the tribunal wag correct in net considering the schema Vflfiich contemplated that Section ei'.el(l} will not 1:35"
only if it is _approVé6vib§*V sf Zilmdifiu V4 ' of Government 'i"afid $0vernment Endia, jgés' of waived an - ', income vf 'R$:2Q;48,$O€312/# on which, tax " ,1iabi'iVié;_§Iv«_._ i-3:'Rs . 8, 80, 98, 530/--~« which ' Kfi&§7 been granted éby the Afiéegéing Cfificer under Section 154 Vcf théW Act under an ordez dated ~.§1;3;2OGO which relied was not fresh .'Cémmis$i0ner V 5by?£he assessee before the Appellate and therefore, the tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the revanue without recording 53 finding can the merits of the matter. 6/ incom@W .Qnfieru iiflfihei Notification ' .d_"gi~:g%ecz " 2.8,,2.ec§'Q';"'*~ haci ' ..5_
3. We have heard the learned q¢5u§s¢1 for the parties.
4. The main contention bfiféré dSEby the revenue :8 that the trgbufial has di$pdS@dd0t'd the appeal only on dtfie_ grdufidd tfiat the provisions of 'tSecttonrd~§2da_of "the Sick Industrial CdmpanigfiV{S§édidit?ro§isions) Act, 1985,~wofiid tdyerridéd the" provisions of the Incofig 'Taxfi"§ct;ddadrdCdrding to the learned counseirgfort the 'révenue, the relief to be gréntéd to the fissessee in terms of the order Vd,'@é$sajV$f the BIFR had been granted by the 'as$éssifig:0fficer and therefore, the tribunal has. Committed an error in dismissing the dVnappeai without Considering the case of tha Va@§eliant$ -revenue on merits. 8* -5-
5. The learned ceunsel for the aéseséee does net dispute this fact.
6. If it is so, we are of tee 9915195 that the appeai has eie bee allowed afid ;£he*e order passed by the 1"-;..:»1"ee be set aside without eehsidegifigefithe eeeetantiai queetione of law gefisfié 5? tee eppellante in this ?.' 'Ln 7f:§e ",§e$u1t, the appeal is al1owe§}g ?heee:def"paseed by the Income Tax n._ Appeliete "Tribunal, Bangalore in ETA "<_'Q¢.s;zBa;§§z2eo; dated 28.1.2004 is hereby set aeide 'efidf the matter is remanded to the tribmfialv for fresh eeesideration with a A»i~directien to censider all the questions raised by the revenue before it, on HfifitS and in 15/ _7_ accordanee with law' after givingm.fieaa§nable »= oppertunity fa: both the p§rtéé3 :fi{VieQ"9f1 this order, it is for the tripfina1Tt¢,¢ahs:aer"
the cross objections fiiE§'by €hé"fés@Qndent, on merits. '_"~ TV _ ";»nV. . M - Sal' Judge 42 .... ~.iT:iw;fi:®¢ ffl @r fl' ,m_§ Eséilaa . _ X' ,.~--. judge