Ita/138/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri P Shyamaraju

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.138 OF 2012 BEI|WEEN 1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL, C.R. BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2).ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF | INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-(2)2, BANGALORE. _.. APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I.LSANMATHI, ADV.) AND SRI P.SHYAMARAJU>IV MAIN, NO.343,.UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS,SADASHIVNAGAR,BANGALORE-S80O. ~.. RESPONDENT| (MR. V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) THIS IJ§.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OI.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06/01/2012|PASSED IN ITA NO.505/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2005-2006, PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR)SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED|BY THE HON’ BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT,|BANGALORE IN ITA NO.505/BANG/2010 DATED 06/01/2012|PASSED BY THE ITA TRIBUNAL, ~B” BENCH, BANGALORE FOR.THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2OO5-2006 IN THE INTEREST OF|JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THISDAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.V.Chandrashekar,learned|counsel|for.theaSSeSSAE., 2 |This appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘theAct’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. Thesubject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment.Year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted by a Bench ofthis Court vide order dated 01.08.2012 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “1. When the joint warrant is issued in thename of one or more persons, whether|an Individual assessment could be meadein law in view of provisions contained inSection 292CC (2) of the Income Tax|Act? andname of one or more persons, whether|an Individual assessment could be meadein law in view of provisions contained inSection 292CC (2) of the Income Tax|Act? and D>|Whether the contra finding of the|Tribunal is bad In law?Tribunal is bad In law? 2(A). Whether the appellate order passed bythe tribunal annulling the assessment|concluded in the respondent-assessee’s|case on account of issuance of Joint-warrant is sustainable in terms of the|subsequent|Amendment.INVoIvINg—insertion of Sec.7297-CC In the IncomeTax Act by the Finance Act 2012 with.retrospective effect from 1-4-1976?"the tribunal annulling the assessment|concluded in the respondent-assessee’s|case on account of issuance of Joint-warrant is sustainable in terms of the|subsequent|Amendment.INVoIvINg—insertion of Sec.7297-CC In the IncomeTax Act by the Finance Act 2012 with.retrospective effect from 1-4-1976?" 3.)We have neard tne learned counsel for tne parties. 4For the reasons assigned by us in theJudgment passed today in ITA No.132/2012, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.01.2012 is herebyquashed. 5.|Needless to state that all contentions of both the parties are kept open on merits of the matter. 6.|In view of the fact that we have remitted thematter to the Tribunal, it is not necessary for us toanswer the substantial questions of law framed in thisappeal. J |The Tribunal shall make an endeavor todispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. qn/-|CT-HR| Sd/-| JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE|