Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri M J Siwani on 20 August, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKARA
Income Tax Appeal No. 737 of 2008
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE
C.R. BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3)
C R BUILDING
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS
[By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.]
AND:
SHRI M J SIWANI
M/S H M CONSTRUCTIONS
GENEVA HOUSE
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
[By Sri S Parthasarathy, Adv.]
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
29.02.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO. 455/BNG/2007, FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Order dated 25-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore and the confirming order dated 29-2-2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A', Bangalore, pertaining to respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1999-2000, are called in question in this appeal.
2. The only substantial question of law raised by the appellant in this case is as under:
1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were bound to record a finding, as to whether 50% of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the Assessee on substantive basis or regular assessment?3
3. Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the appellants-revenue and Sri S Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.
4. On an earlier occasion, the tribunal has set aside the order of the assessing officer in the block assessment proceedings and remanded the matter to the assessing officer to consider the case of the assessee on merits. Now, the question is that when the matter is pending before the assessing officer, whether an order passed by the authority- below by way of protective assessment has to be kept pending till the assessment is over?
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the case of the assessee has to be considered by the assessing officer on merits and in accordance with law. After the proceedings attained finality, it is open for the revenue to revive protective assessment order.
4
6. With the above observation, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk