Ita/312/2013 Of M/S. Maganur Builders (Dissolved Firm) v. The Income-Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF JANUARY 27014| PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.312/2013(I-IT) | BETWEEN M/S. MAGANUR BUILDERS(DISSOLVED FIRM)NO.144/1,NITTUVALLI,DAVANAGERE, |REPRESENTED BY ITS ERSTWHILE PARTNER,SRI M.B. SANKAMESHWARA GOWDAAGED ABOUT 6/7 YEARSS/O LATE MAGANUM BASAPPA_ APPELLANT| (BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD 2, PARK VIEW BUILDING41H MAIN, P.J. EXTENSIONDAVANAGERE-5//7 OO2.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,). THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT|1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08/03/2013 PASSED INITA NO.536/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, PRAYING THIS HON’ BLE COURT TO:I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAWSTATED THEREIN, II]. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERPASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.536/BANG/2010|DATED 08/03/2013. | THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS’ DAY, | DILIP B. BHOSALE J,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PC: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The|appellant-firmhave|raised.thefollowing questions as substantial questions of law: 1)Whether in law, the authorities below are justifiedin dispelieving tne genuineness of the affidavitwhich was duly sworn to and acted upon by thepartners? in dispelieving tne genuineness of the affidavitwhich was duly sworn to and acted upon by thepartners? 2.Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified inconciuding tnat distribution had taken place only onthe date of dissolution j.e., 20.11.1998 ignoring aduly executed and a valid affidavit confirming theGistripution anterior to the dissolution of tne firm?conciuding tnat distribution had taken place only onthe date of dissolution j.e., 20.11.1998 ignoring aduly executed and a valid affidavit confirming theGistripution anterior to the dissolution of tne firm? 3.Whether in law, when the firm having valued all theassets at pook value ana also aistriputed assetsanterior to the date of actual dissolution, theautnorities below are justified in relying on thedecision of A.L.A. Firm as against the decision ofthis Hon’ble Court in the case of Ratna Mahal?assets at pook value ana also aistriputed assetsanterior to the date of actual dissolution, theautnorities below are justified in relying on thedecision of A.L.A. Firm as against the decision ofthis Hon’ble Court in the case of Ratna Mahal? 3. From bare perusal of the questions formulated, it) is clear that they are not substantial questions of law buttney are the disputed questions of fact. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placedneavy reliance upon the affidavit dated 24.09.1998 to)contend that the partners had distributed assets much)prior to the date of actual dissolution of the partnersnip|firm. The dissolution was vide Deed of Dissolution dated|20.11.1998 which was registered on 21.11.1998. The.affidavit on which a heavy reliance was placed by theassessee was considered by the Tribunal in deptn. In)paragrapn-25 of the order the Tribunal nas recorded its)reasons to hold that it is not genuine affidavit i.e., theaffidavit dated 24.09.1998. In our opinion, no substantial |questions of law are involved in this appeal. Similarly, wedo not find any manifest error in the findings of fact)recorded by the authorities below.In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. TL Sda/-JUDGE. Sd/-JUDGE.