Karnataka High Court
Sunil B Bhurat (Huf) vs Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2) on 23 September, 2008
Bench: V.G Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _ _ V A' DATED THIS THE 2312» DAY OF sE?rEMB;:§{§Qéé.j'};':: *' PRESENT 2 I THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1c§}3 4' AND THE HONBLE MR.JUérz¢§§"s.N.s§m7*Yg$.:~z.AiéA§}2§§ié{' S INCOME TAXv.APPEi\i.-V' NO.~3o4 1*/' 2005:
Between:
SR1 sum. B. E3H¥._£RA'i' (H4U-F}. ' REF'. 3? KARTaHA'«i.;._ , * V * " sRIsL%1*:IL'BiAB:HUR".é,*i' _ REP. BY I-{IS GPA, Pi_0L<DE«R SAi€FHOSI~§ S. BHURAT, HzR1:PI«.?'rH,}iU13Lig-L.' ' 1. APPELLANT (By A .sHAN"mR:,v ADV}, ) ' iuéomfii OFFTCER, WARD 2' {2_\_," HUBLI.
" ' ...RESPONDEN'I' .' {r3y__ S:-i"ra§.v.sHEsHAcHALA, ADV.,3 H THIS I.'I'.A FILED U/S. 260A OF THE 1NCOME TAX ACT, ""1961 ARiSiNG OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.6.2005 PASSED EN ETA NO.59'?'/BANG/03 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PRAYENG THAT TI-HS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASEfl TO: A. FORMULATE THE SUBSI'AN'I'IAL QUESTIONS STATED THEREIN AND "
B. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET As:D1;=7 PASSED BY THE I'l'A'I' BANQA.Dc_:}RE' =.j1N_ :'I*A. NO. 597 /BANG/ 03 DATED ;2§;'5;2o{)s;.'o1~,I« min. xIA:{:D§?rY OF ASSESSMENT FOR ~As$r:ssA_4"§:z~;'1*.i"D_D'--xfizme 1998-99.
THIS ITA comma Haflaiififi: T}-Ixs DAY, sAmA1m- J., DEL1vER':E;Dfm3' Fciugmski-ND: " " This by being aggrieved by tilc --.0I'fi <§i*. " the Inoome~tax Appellate " _ Bench 'C' in rrAD;;\t¢;597/Banlg/zdos dated 29.5.2005 for the A 1998~99 confuming the order passed '."VuC!§}IIVAi;.*TV(V1'iSSiOI1('3I' of Income--tax (Appeals), Hubli, W36 3 had confirmed the order passed by the V. autiloxity, wherein the transaction declared in AA "i;11'eHregu1ar returns as cash credit under Section 68 and 'unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 196 1.
2. The substantial questions of law arises for our determination in this appeal are,
1) Whether the finding of the Income-_; " , "
Tax Appellate 'I'ribuna1 that t11e_;fle transaction as revealed in ' returns filed are taxab1c;~1inder .3OCfiOf1S 68 and 69 of the Inc-pme5ta;x'.Aet; perverse or arbitraiy T "for _ 'nQ11_ "
consideration of tIV1e.4mate3:'_La} factwes. to 3 whether the goods are some t1nder" "
the transactions reiied upon» thy" the assesse are the saxne which-.h.ad been dwiared. t§r1e"e.pp1ication fileé under Voluntary' 'fleclaratien » .Vei'- Income Scheme_ 1997¢....which 'was':at:cep"tcd by the revem1e?§: ' . ' ' ewm¢rasr?_[j%e ~ « I V' The. £3_._bQ'JC substantial questions of law have A ;been..gnssvlé"md in I'I'A.No.186/2004 arising an identical % "facts siict; ss decided on 22.9.2093 by a detailed order C_ preneiatleed separateiy.
AA 4. For the reasons assigned in the said appeal, V'jI'I'A.No.186/2004, which is applicable on all fours to the facts ef the present case, we answer the substanfial question of law No.1 in aflirmative and substantial , K5» question of law No.2 as per final order and _. following:
ORDER,m_ The appeal is a11owe(1,__. '1'1«1"e_vorder ~~ 9' Income-tax Appellate 'C' in ITA.No.597 / Barxgalotie] 3; ' " « year 1993-99 confmnieg ipéissed by the who inturn had Assesssing Ofiieer is set asi_§:ie._ is." remitted to the assessing officer fo1'fi_" orders in the light of the _ omefiafions the body of the order. Sd/-gm Judge.
sd!-'L