Ita/417/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mandovi Motors Pvt., Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 PRESENT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR| ITA No.417/2009 BETWEEN: 1.)THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.CR BUILDING, ATTAVARA.MANGALORE.CR BUILDING, ATTAVARA.MANGALORE. 2THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF) INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1) CR BUILDING, ATTAVARA. MANGALORE.—~ APPELLANTS| (BY SRI K V ARAVIND & SRI G KAMALADHAR, ADYs.) AND: M/S MANDOVI MOTORS PVT. LTD., 14-2-122, BALMATTA ROAD MANGALORE.RESPONDENT (BY SRIS PARTHASARATHI & SRI V K GURUNATHAN, ADVs.) THIS JTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF.INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)25.03.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.992/BANG/2007 FOR THEASSESSMENT YRBAR 2002-2003 PRAYING TO FBFORMULATHE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE|AND TO ALLOW THR APPBKEAL AND SET ASIDE THORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITANO.992/BANG/2007 DATED 25.03.2009 AND CONFIRM THE|ORDER PASSED BY THER ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,VINEE SARAN,, J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Gurunathan, learned counsel holding the brief of | Sti S Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and_ perused the records. 2.The appeal has been admitted on the following questionsot law: “2) Whether the Iribunal was correct in holding that thereassessments 1s bad in law as no addition was made in respect ofthe atsallowance of aepreciation on wiich assessments werereopened when the reopening assessments has takenplace in respectof disallowance of rentpata to related at a higher rate contrary toSection 40A(2)(b) ofthe Acté Whether the Iribunal was correct in ignoring the rate ofRs.4 per sq.feet fixed for the assessment year 1995-99 by the}Hon’ble High Court ofKarnataka in ITA No.2607/2005 andaccepting the rent claimed by the assessee?” CuLearned counsel for the parties do not dispute the factthat the first question of law is covered by the decision of this Court rendered on 1.7.2015 in|ITA No.504/2013 (Sri N Govindaraju - vs- Income Tax Officer and another), wherein it has been held thateven when the reason recorded for reopening the assessment given innotice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act does not survive thenalso tax can be levied by the Assessing Officer on different reason ifthe same has come to the notice of the Assessing Officersubsequently during the course of proceedings. As such, for thereasons given in the aforesaid judgment, the first question of law isdecided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. AAs tegatds the second question of law, learned counselfor the parties agree that the same is covered by the judgment of this_ Court in the case ot assessee itself inITA No.2607/2005 (TheCommissioner of Income-Tax & anr. -vs- M/s.Mandovi Motor) on 22.3.2007for the assessment year 1998-99, In the light of the said judement, the second question of law is decided in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. | Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of by answering thefirst question in favour of the Revenue and the second question intavour ot the assessee. _ Bkm. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE