Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt Chindodi Leela on 6 June, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
'4»)
I.T.A CROB NO, 3 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHINDODI LEELA.
C/Os SHANKAR LEELA GAS AGENCIES,
NO. .3371/9, MCC 'B' BLOCK'
DAVANGERE M 577 003.} ._
SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LR'S., _° ~ 9'
SE: C L CHANDRADHARA
C/C) M/S SHANKAR LEELA
GAS AGENCY,
NO. 3371/A, S' V
"SARVA KALAGIRI GO'$"?RA_LEE%;A. Nilg;/\YA_"
MCC 'B' BLOCK, *
DAVANAGERE~:«_577 o94--.v.."'E
{AMENDED AS 'PER C:2DEE',.CAifE:j;.Q9 /"Q6 /2010)
_ . CROSS OBJECTOR
{BY SR1' A;
1. THE INCOMETAX,
FAEUILEIN G;
~ QUEENS ROAD... ..... .. -
_ . A' ""BANG_ALQ_RE - 550 00:.
COMMISSIONER OF ENCOMETAX,
{BY }é,;RI Mrvi SESHACHALA, ADV}
g '{iIRCL--.E:j~.7['i}
~..KENDRIYA SADANC
KORAEMANGALA,
BANHGALQRE «-- 550 024.
E RESPONDENTS
-4"
THIS ETA CROB IS FH.I:TD U/Q XLL RULE: 22 OF THE CPC, ARISING OUT OF ORDER I1>A'I'E',D 3O.Oa20OzI..;I\I ETA NO. I238/Sang/2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995' QBI RRAYINO THAT THIS HONBLE COURT 'SE PLEASEO TO: ADJUDICATE AND DE<:~IE»jE.._ FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR .StIevR_"O*rHERI*v.'_ QUESTION OF LAW AS MAY BE I~*ORI\zIIII,.AfIEI>--..gr_ *rI-I'ISV HONBLE COURT, CONFIRM THE.._APPELLATE 'ORI3E_R ' PASSED BY THE ITAI: BA;\ZGALCIRE_ 'IN-__ 'I.'I'A I238/Bang/2003 dated 30.092004 II-:_'_' I *I'I~IE'~.II\I*rERES_f*~r. JUSTICE AND EQUITY. I THESE ITA 8; ITA COIvIII\IO_7OI\I FOR HEARING THIS D1~'2Y';'A-._SABHAHYI',J;--, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ' This; 'v1é.f1d'V'V".:ffh€V!!V"€2I'Oé§SVV. objection have been admitared tOTA"cTIO.nSi(nler --iIl.i€f.'VV_1I'OYi_1Q'<Ving substantial question Of Iaw:
(1.). Vxfhvether the Tribunal was correct in holding Ina'; the income derived by the assessee worked Out by the assessing' Officer based On the material Seizeé during the Survey from " N[/S.KBR Drama Company after deduciing _ Vfthe expenditure from the receipts cannot be 'T accepted without assigning any Cegent reasons fOr arriving at Such a Conclusion and Consequently recorded a pewerse finding.
xi
- 6 )\~<
2. This appeal and cross objections pe:r*taih___to the assessment, year 199396. in respect of as«se-s1s¢_1i'e11t years 1996971 1997198. 199899 the cross objector had filed ETA z 2337, 2338* 2339 a 2340 of 20°05 Nos.4~,5 & e of 2006 and 1;§;s,}:s;+;;ier&a:ed,s;._1o~--}2oo'? this"? Court observed that heft "h.on--eohsid.eE1ration of explanation and -seasoned order passed understand also having regard to recorded by the CIT and is impugned in these appeals substantial questions of law framed 1n"'«theseV'va}Ajpea;s and also the cross objections sot he examined and substantial questions of law _ Wefea.ta.hstVered in View of the submissions made by Iheagehed. appearing for the parties and passed the following order:
3 The learned Counsel appeifiing parties in thrs present appeai submit that ihe sa mé" "
order be passed in this appeal 21r1'(i'---cross Qbj"<:<?jiiiOI1-:?§; as the order impugned in identical.
4. ACCOFdiDgi:#",.'..':'- I anci Hvcross objections areAV_disp<) s.ed 0f the order dated 3 % "Nof§.2329, 2330., 2331, Q1? 2005 and Cross Obje(;9%_i0ns%A2O.O6. The assesses: shall appear befbre the officer on 4~'.7~--2O1 1. 5&2"
§§dg?§ Edi Eizégg