Karnataka High Court
M/S Southern Ferro Ltd., vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 17 March, 2011
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.N.Nagamohan Das
IN E'fi§d*d1%*éE£?Efi*A?E2%§fiBMT&?'5'
DATED THIS TH§_""R1gf§ lgAQ'1QF"MARCH 2011
THE HONABLE MF{§_j-t7:L'$§L'5fE .«KTVP;V'LP;P.M.vA.?dJUNATH
THE HONf.B*L§§MRLJUST1'CE.VAHvP'.'_N..,VNA{3AMOHAN DAS
1,, TA. No . 5037/2o1T0
EEEE soga/2010
1"IVw -».FVer,r4oA._L't*d' A
(form,er"!y '..kr.-owh'-..___""as Ferro Concrete Co.of
India(VS«t_ee.I), ,
Rep, by its"D'ir"ect'or
Séri M . Bid é'sa..r.i..a<
'P1nd'"uf'stria.J._ Estate,
A :Gok.:_;:ITR'o.E:'d--,.: HubIi--58O 030
. . . APPELLANT
(COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS)
(Es~~/sri.A.shan:<ar & G.K.Hiregoudar, Adv.)
"'..v1'."'P'l'he Joint /Deputy Commissioner
of Income--Tax (Asst.)
/.44'
lv'
Special Range,
C.R.Building, Navanagar,
HUBLI-580 O25
. . . . RESPQ~NsDENT'Il»LL' A
(COMM'O'N'*INfl BOTHAPPEALS).
(By Sri.Y.V.Raviraj, AdvI,)
ITA SO37/10 FILED""'*4F..Q}'»SEC.26O"ATIA THE
INCOME--TAX ACT, 195.1, ,AiGARfLl_\lS;F,.,QRDER'lD'lD:9--O3-
2010 PASSED IN ITAINAO~.32'7'2'/BANG,/R2004 ON THE
FILE OF THE I.!\=lCOM:E'*"T.Af.>§ Al3l?ElE.L;AIff'l§v"*l;RIBUNAL, "B"
BENCH, £3\:_l_"l:O.\:,'/VR.T.:VlV\'l'V.G""T-li~|E APPEAL FILED
BY AN I
ITA S('l38i,/.'v,1,V.Q_f:'FIL'E.D'-Hid'/SEC.260 A OF THE INCOME-
TAx ACT, I96,1,TLfAGA,I'NST ORDER DTD:30-05-2006
PASSED IN ITA_NOi;2o'B'3/BANG/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THRREiI.:.IN:CO_,ME'TA><.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "B" BENCH,
.E5A.NGALQ--R:lf~,.ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY AN
1 As+ ESSBE.
' )
Appeals coming On for Admission this day,
i\'ag_an50han Das, J, delivered the following:
%\J~"
:3:
JUDGMENT
The assessee is before this court..i.nv_A4gjtVhiVsA./7'gym":
being aggrieved by the order 2083/04 and 3272/O4s'p.asseVd._'"bv ':Tlaxfr. Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore)':-'..:_' A H
2. The Tribuna'*l.--..V:A'0.y 'Z006 i" the very same appeals 'dismissed the rectificatigm _ it had become infraCtuoLi.s"A:ogn appeal is allowed. In filed appeal before this court questioining At~h"e'~~--rnain orders of the Tribunal in ITA}'i~N;ot;4,l_Q7. '"Ti"i'e'reafter, the assessee filed a Misc. the Tribunal to review the earlier order dated 2006. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal' disposed the Misc. Petition 92 and 93/2009 'gw*ithA'éan observation as:
f "However in the interest of justice,'"'the.V"':_ assessee is at liberty to raise the prel-i%n'ina'rfgy..T' issue claimed to be not adju_dwi--ca:t:eVd"~l.::a«tg appropriate stage as per law" I
3. The grievance of t»h.e_"aV_ssesse__e'inAlt.hi's.;'a'p'peal is" V that in the event ofrevenu.e**'*s:i.jg_§:«c'é*edingain-thei appeals on main issue then to:'th'ev"assessee will be barred by .:eve:n:tyfj_'thveflfobservation made by the 'order takes away the right his remedy. We are of the without answering the substantial"questions of law raised in this appeal, ends ll"j.us'tiee7f»~/iyill~,__be clarifying that the assessee is ravi»s'e the preliminary issue claimed by him at"aDp--.r:opriate stage after disposal of the appeal filed 'by..the"'revenue.
4. Today in ITA No.4/O7 we disposed of the appeal filed by th ue holding the questions of law raised in the appeal against the revenue. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to quest'iVo:n.._:'t-hie preliminary issue and in that event, the Tifiibunal:.s:"'Sih:a"i~li'V decide the same on merits wi.tho»uty refer4e'rrCe to.f.theA question of delay. With this claiAi"iVf_io--at'i'onthese are hereby disposed of.
*idufl "~JUDGE Ak