Ita/585/2023 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ind Sing Developers Pvt Ltd

Digitallysigned byBHARATHI SLocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIP M.,ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVIRAJ Y V, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S IND SING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, NO 208, WEST MINISTER COMPLEX 13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560052 PAN NO …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN U A.,ADVOCATE) THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGLAURU IN ITA NO. 348/BANG/2012 DATED 18/07/2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- TO 2007 ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Dilip M., along with Raviraj Y.V., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Madushan U.A., learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.348/Bang/2012 for the assessment year 2006-07, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition of Rs.17.64 lakhs in respect of unproved debts in the case of Shri. Raghunatha (of M/s.Chaithanya Properties) out of Rs.57.11 lakhs by holding that assesse is required to explain credit in his books of accounts and no credit in books of accounts of other party ignoring that assesse has not explained the difference between the assessee's books of accounts and books maintained by Mr.Raghumatha"? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition of Rs.51 lakhs in case of Mr.Rajendra (Neriga Land) as unproved loans out of Rs.1.75 crores made by assessing officer by holding that assesse has proved that the said entry is wrongly posted on account of Mr. Rajenndra instead of some other party by ignoring that assesse failed to produce confirmation letter from any party"? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition of Rs.24,44,500 as income from sale of lands from M/s.Sapphire Infrastructure transaction by holding that assessing authority has not carried out any enquiry to ascertain genuineness of transaction by ignoring sworn statements recorded assessing authority, financial statements relied upon by assesse and modus operandi adopted by assesse which established that assessing authority was right in making the addition"? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition of Rs.24,44,500 as income from sale of lands from M/s.Sapphire Infrastructure transaction by holding that assessing authority has not carried out any enquiry to ascertain genuineness of transaction by ignoring sworn statements recorded assessing authority, financial statements relied upon by assesse and modus operandi adopted by assesse which established that assessing authority was right in making the addition"? 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deletion of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkatramana by relying on additional document produced by assesse without giving opportunity to assessing authority to file remand report as require under Rule 46A of 1.T.Rules"? 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting additions made by assessing authority by ignoring the materials on record, findings of assessing authority and failure on part of assesee that the amounts in question were disclosed in books of accounts of assesee”? 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 - 5 - issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the questions of law are kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 14