Ita/58/2021 Of Smt. Uma Nitesh Bera v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby YASHODHA NLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SMT. UMA NITESH BERAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.25/1, 3 FLOOR K.R.SHETTYPET, ANANDAPPA LANE AVENUE ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 PAN: …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-5(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 040 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.896/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU B BENCH IN ITA NO. 896/BANG/2018 DATED 21.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. NO. 896/BANG/2018 DATED 21.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the Assessee challenging the order dated 21.06.2019 in ITA No.896/Bang/2018 passed by the ITAT[1], "B" Bench, Bangalore, has been admitted to consider following questions of law: a) Whether the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated all the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant and is not justified in adjudicating only one ground by holding that the other grounds are not argued and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? b) Whether the Tribunal ought to have held the notice under section 143(2) having not been issued, the same renders the assessment order bad in law and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? c) Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the Appellant having duly declared the share transactions in the return of income, the invocation of provisions of section147 of the Act for the same is not warranted and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? [[ 1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench 2. Heard Shri.S.Annamalai, learned advocate for the appellant-Assessee and Shri.M.Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Revenue. 3. At the outset, Shri Annamalai submitted that the ITAT has remanded the matter to the CIT(A)[2] to consider factual matrix with regard to issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act[3]. His grievance is that ITAT has not considered other grounds. He prayed that CIT(A) may be directed to consider all the grounds urged before the ITAT. 4. Shri Dilip for the Revenue has no objection. 5. In view of the above, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is disposed of; ii) The order dated 21.06.2019 in ITA No.896/Bang/2018, passed by the ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru, is modified. The CIT(A) is directed to consider all the grounds urged before the ITAT; No.896/Bang/2018, passed by the ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru, is modified. The CIT(A) is directed to consider all the grounds urged before the ITAT; 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3 Income Tax Act, 1961 iii)Since the remand order is not disturbed, the questions of law are not answered in this appeal. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53