Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sri C V Demashetty Prop: Sree ... on 21 February, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1 i.T.A.NO.'¥363f2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ClRCU!T EENCH AT DHARWAD DATED 1':-as THE 21 st DAY or FEBRUARY, 2909 :PRESENT: V 9 ms I-lON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATILW < j Of'7j«_: AND T O ms HON'BLE MR. JUST|CE.;ARALl l.T.A~_.NO. 1363 0:: 23036 BETWEEN ' V' L THE OOMM!3SIONER OF iNCOMEO'-UOXX KHSMJEBHOE COMMERCHAL COMPLEX OPP CIWL HOSPlTAL,.BELGALfM A E- 5%.) THE ADDL commssstosiea 'GF'iNOOMETTfi\:X» --. FZANGE2,BELf3AUM V «««« APPELLANTS (By Sri 3&RAv::a;aVKt3.ws;xE§'a&.r;iv'<3§§ATE} - 1. am: C v D"EMASHETT'f-; , ._§_PR€3P: SREE BHAGYALAKSHME AGENGES . 'ZBUSVSTAND ROAB,--SDKAK ' 59130? ~ . «_ RESPONDENT
qégyhsra: s.VPA%§fa~§é;éARATH: ADVOCATE} O T§?1€':-$ IS. F-"SLED U{SK280--A OF i.T.ACT 1961 IS ARESENG OUT OF HORDER QATED G6-G6-2606 F'AS$ED EN ITA NO. 'H?;'PANJf2005 FOR THE " O' ASSESSMENT YEARS 2693-O4, PRAWNG THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY V' ._ E§E PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTHKL QUESTSONS OF LAW O , 'STA-TED ABOVE (2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASEDE THE ORBER PASSED BY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR%BUNAL, F3ANAJi BENCH SN 1TA NCH1 7IPAN.3:2005 DATES 5.82006 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED O E' "BY THE AD..FUDiCAT!NG OFFICER ON 27.92904. 2 l(T,A.NO.1363!2006 THES l.T.A.. COMING on FOR A£)MiSSlON, THES DAY, N,:<~.1_3j;r«rrllll.;-,.:., oaovsreeo THE FOLLOWING: - , ---_ 2 The appellants, being 8.6.2006 passed in l.TsA._rac;.117;eANAJ/zoos}'bya*{ne=% Income Tax Appellate Trlbunel, aerial'; (szvzc) Panaji, have presentedfitis
2. We have heard:..¥ea.rn.e:d_ appearing for appeilants appearéng for resp0r}o''e'ntI.,: 1*"
laopearing for respondent S11. 8 Parthasarattmi' at.the'v.oVL'3tVset, submitted that, the prayers '"tl'}_e aooellants in the instant appeal do not I L---sVoVryi$(ev.torv'oonsEderation, in pursuance of the order dated 31A.'§~.'12O0?.lA«:joassed by the Additional Commissioner of ' .Vt,.l;¥n¢orr3e''Tax, Range-2 Beigaum, in No. 271 D:Addl.ClT:R-- 2flE3{5ltfl: 2006-07, which has attained finality.
4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants has not disputed the order passed by the competent authority "tsn**' 3 !.T.A.NO.'i363i2006 on 31.1.2007 and he has submitted that, the said order has been passed without prejudice to the subject'-rna.tter pending consideration before this Court. submission cannot be asceptedsinse the_sanis'¢o?dejr hast'; attained finality.
5. In the light of theVfas§s.ansV. céreuamstafiés hof that case as stated abtwe, _.the_ gppean filed by appellants stands it fV»vof~_~\,,:tv.:§§'.rtwaving become infructuous.
Sd/--» fudge Sd/-2 Iudgé