Ita/265/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Senate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 3 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN. INCOME TAXK APPEAL NO.265 OF 201 BEI|WEE 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA®™CENTRAL CIRCLE,C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU.CENTRAL CIRCLE,C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU. 2 |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU.CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS | (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE). ANI THE SENATE.SHERIFF CENTRE,73/1, ST. MARKS ROAD,|BENGALURU.SHERIFF CENTRE,73/1, ST. MARKS ROAD,|BENGALURU. .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)ALONG WITH SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL [IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,|PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW|THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,IN I.T.A. NO.587/BANG/2011 DATED 10-1-2014 AND.CONFIRMTHEORDER|OF|THE.APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY.THE.DEPUTY.COMMISSIONEROFINCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU. THIS INCOME TAK APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Revenue Nas filed this appeal challenging theorder of the Tribunal by raising two- substantialquestions of law: l.Whether the Tribunal was correct’ /nholding that if it is found on verification of|the agreement and document tnat the|assessee nas entered into an agreement|with IBC Knowledge Park Private Limitedfor acquisition of immovable property thenthe|advancewouldbe|Stock-in-tradewithout appreciating that as the assessee|nad not put the asset into use, tne.holding that if it is found on verification of|the agreement and document tnat the|assessee nas entered into an agreement|with IBC Knowledge Park Private Limitedfor acquisition of immovable property thenthe|advancewouldbe|Stock-in-tradewithout appreciating that as the assessee|nad not put the asset into use, tne. investment along with tne interest wouldbe capitalized and not allowed as the|revenue expenditure U/s.36(I) (ili) and|that there Is no evidence to the effect that|the so-called acquisition of rights Is|towards stock-in-trade?| 2 Whether tne Tribunal was rignt in directingtheassessingofficertoallow|theexpenditure if the assessee as entered intoan agreement without appreciating that|the assessee nad not made any claim as a.business expenditure in the return of|income but made a claim u/s.24(1) of the|Act?theassessingofficertoallow|theexpenditure if the assessee as entered intoan agreement without appreciating that|the assessee nad not made any claim as a.business expenditure in the return of|income but made a claim u/s.24(1) of the|Act? 2. However, on considering the contentions, weare of the view that no interference is called for. The|Tribunal was of the view that the assessee did not file|the copy of the agreement entered into between the|assessee and IBC Knowledge Park Private Limited|before the Authorities below and filed it as additional|evidence. Under the circumstance, the Tribunal was of| the view that it is appropriate to remand the matter|back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the|documents and thereafter, to consider the case of the)asSsSseSsee. 3. In these circumstances, we are of the.considered view that the order passed by the Tribunaldoes not call for any interference. The order ofremand would benefit not only the Revenue, but also|the assessee, in view of the reasons assigned by the|Tribunal. | Therefore, we are of tne view that nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit,Is dismissed. SD/-JUDGE| SD/-|JUDGE kKVK