By Mr v. Chandrashekar, Adv., For

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW A BETWEEN: ILT.A. NO.259 OF 2017 1.|PR, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-56000 1. 2.|DY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX| CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE. (BY MR. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W| MR. E.1. SANMATHI, ADV.,) .... APPELLANTS AND* SHRI. S. ASHOK KUMAR.(HUF), NO.6/70, 6TH CROSSKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034|PAN: ABGPR14271H (BY MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR| MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1306/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-O07, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAWAND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BEFORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. SET!ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25-05-2016 PASSED BY THE. ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITANO.1306/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, ASSOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER.RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.E.R.Indrakumar, learned Senior counsel along with|Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. Tne appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|14.11.2017 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of.the case, the Tribunal was Justified in law in settingaside the re-assessment order by holding that theassessing authority had not supplied the reasons forre-recording even though the assessee was madeaware of tne crux of the case tnrougn letter and|assessee was provided sufficient opportunity ofnearingandaSS@CSSCCfieverobjectedtofreassessment proceedings?” 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the substantialquestion of law framed by this Court has already beenanswered by the Supreme Court against the revenue in"PRL, COMMISSIONEROF|INCOME-TAX|Ys.Y.RAMATAH(2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 202 (SC).Tne aforesaidstatement of fact could not be disputed by the learned|counsel for the revenue. 3. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law of tneSupreme Court, the substantial question of law framed by|tnis Court is answered against the revenue and in favour ot tne assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE