Ita/434/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mc Dowell & Co.ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THER 2[RI)]DAY OF JANUARY, 20195 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA ITA No. 4384/200 BBRTWEHR 1.)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. iaTHE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) ANT) Mc. DOWELL & Co., LTD.,(NOW KNOWN AS UNITED SPIRITS LTD..,)No.ol, RICHMOND ROAD,BANGALORE -560 O0O1 —. RBSPONDBENT (BY SRI. S.R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE) THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEKBKCTION 2J60-ATHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED|03.04.2009PASSEDIN|ITANO.138/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 PRAYING TO FORMULATRKR THR SUBSTANTIAQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO)ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SBT ASIDE THE ORDERS|PASSEDBY|THE.ITAT,BANGALORE|IN|ITANo.138/BANG/2009,DATHRD:03.04.2009|ANTCONFIRM.THE.ORDEROFTHE|APPBLLATECOMMISSIONBR CONFIRMING THR ORDER PASSED|BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRNTRALCIRCLE-2(3),.BANGALORE,IN|TH EINTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE)KHOLLOWING: JUDGMENT smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned counsel takes noticeto the respondent. 2 |The revenue has preferred this appeal|against the order passed by the Tribunal, which heldthat the amount representing sales tax deferred under the sales tax deferred loan incentive scheme is to be!deemed as paid and therefore not taxable. 3.|The following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal. “1.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the reasons recorded for reopening of|assessments had no nexus and the entire|information was available with the Assessing|Officerandthereforethereopenedassessments was without jurisdiction, invalid|and consequently was cancelled? aD Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the assessee was not given sufficient|opportunity to establish their case and the|order passed u/s.144 of the Act was required|to be set aside and the matter remitted back|for fresh adjudication became academic inview of the reassessment being set aside? Oo. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holdingthat a sum of Rs.13,78,41,600/- sales tax|amount collected and not paid during the| current assessment year will not be hit by|section 45B of the Act in view of the Board|circular and the Bombay Sales Tax Act?”| 4Dealing with the liability of the sales tax, this.Court had an occasion to consider the said question oflaw in the assessee’s case itself in Income Tax AppealNo.899/2008 decided on 02.09.2014, where the saidquestion was answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue. 5.|Insofar as reopening of the assessment is.concerned, as the assessee is succeeding on merits, thesaid question has become purely academic and it is notnecessary to answer. It is made very clear that theTribunal has remanded the matter to the assessingauthority for fresh consideration. 6. The assessing authority shall consider it afresh excluding the point, which was concluded in thisjudgment. TS|emt. 8.R. Anuradha, is permitted to file| power within four weeks, from today. od/-|JUDGE|od/-JUDGE Sbs*