By Mr v. Chandrashekar, Adv.,Mr. M. Lava, Adv

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 A1T.A. NO.260 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 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" SMI. HEMA S. REDDYNO.6/70, 6TH CROSSKORAMANGALABANGALORE-5600 34PAN: ABGPR14271H. (BY MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, PRAYING TO: | (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR-SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.05.2016.PASSED BY THE ITAT, C BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEALPROCEEDINGS NO ITA NO.1307/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR 2006-2007, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND [TOGRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTERESTOF JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (nereinafter referred to as the Act, for snort) nas|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| 05.12.2017 on tne following substantial questions of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances|of the case, the Tribunal was Justified in law in|setting aside tne re-assessment order by holding tnat tne assessing authority nad not supplied tne reasons forre-recording even tnougn'§ thassessee was made aware of the crux of the|case tnrougn letter and assessee was provided|sufficient opportunity of hearing and assessee.never objected to re-assessment 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