Karnataka High Court
Ramavtar S Mahajan vs Income Tax Officer on 22 September, 2008
Bench: V.G Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
HATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2QOQ»fi":f:"
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE y;G;sABHAH;f"7_V:»fiw"
AND _
THE HON'BLB MR.JUsTIcE,$;u.sAi¥ANA3Ax$fiA~W'E
INCOME TAX APPEA;_fib;18a{2§b4«C, _E
BETWEEN: V C' A C C
SR1 RAMAVTAR S.*MAHAJAN"--::v
BELLARy.GAL§i¢n.°
HUBLI '°.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri A'$fiAMKAR,°ADv;; ;
';:N¢0ME TAKQQEFICER,
wAR¢.113y_-
HUBLE¢' '"
1 ... RESPONDENT
C.jBy Sr; M V SHESHACHALA, ADV.,) ':a,"*»¢HIS I.T.A. FILEE3 U/S. 260A. or THE INCOME « TAX, ACT, 1961 ARISING cum OF ORDER DATED . 23 12.2003 PASSED IN ITA NO.604/BANG/2003 FOR TEE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PRAYING THAT THIS »C'HUN'BLE COUR1' may BE PLEASED TO FQRMULATE THE ;suBsTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE AP?EAL Ann SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEARING ETA NO. 604/BANG/2003 DATED 23.12.2003 ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FQR Thfi ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998~99 ETC. j*t THIS APPEAL COMING on FOR HEARING Taié hat; ~"
SLBHABIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This appeal by the asaeaaee ia tiled beihg aggrieved by the order paaaee by the Ihoome-tax Appellate Tribunal, léafig$1$r¢_oa¢aa§; 'C' in ITA.no.504/aaggafzoosjlaafied-l2a;;2lgoh3 for the assessment ;yé§;5§:g93é9§-.¢§nti;m:ng the order passed h by lxthfipagcomaiasioger of Income-tax (fippealsfgpHubl3;L@h§mi§thrn had confirmed the order passed hp the asaessing authority, wherein 'hthe transaction deoiared in the regular returns 'a$=c§sh credit ynder Section 68 of the Income» tag Aet, igtil' AA°2, The substantial questions of law ariaes .for our determination in this appeal are,
1) Whether the finding of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal that the sale transaction as revealed in the regular returns filed are taxable under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, is perverse or arbitrary for non consideration of the \g,}> material fact as to whether the goods that are sold under the transactions reliede upon by the assesae are the same qoCds_7u which had. been declared under"-jthe5,V application filed under Voluntary r"--' Declaration of Income Scheme 1997;, which was accepted by the revenue?_ j "fin =
2) What order?
3. The above substantial duestions of lag have been answered in ITA.doIl$6{20d4 arising on identical facts and law decreed ¢fi»22.9.2ne8 by a detailed order pronounced separately:
4. For" :hég;:eagqnsz asaigned in the said appeal; ITH}No,l§§/Edfie, whioh is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, we answer the substantial question of law No.1 in lwaffiraativa and suhetantial question of law No.2 taas per"final order and pass the following:
(ORDER dTheaaeeeal is allowed. The order passed by lrtheVdIneomewtax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore :;_3efi¢h' 'C' in ITA.No.604/Bangalore/2003 for 'V"asaessment year l998w99 confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Hubli, who inturn had confirmed the order passed by the Assesssing Gfficer is set aside and the matter '\;«>' is remitted to the assessing officer for passing fresh orders in the .light of the observations made in the body of the order.
Ndf