Ita/286/2016 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Shri M R Seetharam(Huf)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW AILT.A. NO.286 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1.|PR, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA 2.|ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX! CIRCLE 6(1), BANGALORE. _... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)— AND* SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM(HUF), GOKULA HOUSE.GOKULA MATHIKEREBANGALORE-560054 PAN: AAHHS / 34 (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. 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 09.10.2015 PASSEDIN ITA NO.927/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05,PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR_SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE.APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.10.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, CC.BENCH,BENGALURU, IN|APPEAL|PROCEEDINGSNO. ITA NO.927/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, ASSOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER.RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Lava,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 2004-05. The appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|10.10.2017 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal ts right in dismissing the appealpreferredbytheRevenuebygquashingthere-assessment order on the ground that the said order hasbeen passed by without supplying the reasons for re-opening without appreciating that the assessee was wellaware of the reasons for invoking reassessmentproceedings and had contested tne proceedings activelyand decisions relief upon by Revenue have not beenreached finality, further without taking note of section2927BB of the Act?" 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 decision of this Court in ITA No.259/2017passed on 16.01.2021. The aforesaid statement of fact couldnot be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 3. For the reasons assigned in the judgment dated16.01.2021 passed in ITA No.259/2017, the substantialquestion of law framed by this Court is answered against therevenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE RY|