Ita/589/2023 Of The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ind Sing Developers Pvt Ltd

Digitallysigned byBHARATHI SLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA 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. 589 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOJNER 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: 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 TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 109/BANG/2012 DATED 18.07.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING 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 Sri.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.109/Bang/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09, 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.58,55,245/- towards sale of land by Nanda Kumar by holding that since circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition of Rs.58,55,245/- towards sale of land by Nanda Kumar by holding that since this transaction is part of the total transaction with M/s.Shobha Developers, this cannot be taxed in the hands of assesse and isolated as the transaction is under litigation by ignoring that completion of terms of MOU could not be basis of for not treating as income since assesse has received said amount in year under consideration and assesse also failed to give break"? 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.40 lakhs per acre by holding that the same is part of sale consideration on basis of additional evidence brought in by assesse without providing opportunity to assessing officer to file remand report as required under Rule 46A of I.T.Rules? 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.78,12,333/- towards sale of land by Narasimha Murthy by holding that this amount cannot be taxed in present year as same is liable to be taxed in the year when entire transaction amount is received and sale deed is executed by ignoring that no sale proceeds were offered in respect of the transaction and moreover as GPA is already executed, the transaction is completed during year under consideration and part performance of sale is performed as required under section 2(47) of the Act? 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.78,12,333/- towards sale of land by Narasimha Murthy by holding that this amount cannot be taxed in present year as same is liable to be taxed in the year when entire transaction amount is received and sale deed is executed by ignoring that no sale proceeds were offered in respect of the transaction and moreover as GPA is already executed, the transaction is completed during year under consideration and part performance of sale is performed as required under section 2(47) of the Act? 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.3,09,40,750/- made on protective basis by holding that addition is not based on seized material and it is only on basis of oral statement given by Kuppendra Reddy for which opportunity of cross examination has not been given to the assesse ignoring that for A.Y.2006-07, substantive addition has been made on basis of materials available on record? 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 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.: 15