Ita/679/2015 Of Pr. Commissioner Income Tax -6 v. M/S Silver Software Pvt.ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF MARCH, 2016 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA| ITA NO.679/2015 BETWEEN 1.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE — 560 OO1. «|THE DY. COMMISSIONBR-OF INCOME TAX,OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (By SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND M/s. SILVER SOFTWARE PVT. LTD., NO.23 AND 24, EPIP, I PHASE,KIADB WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066,PAN: AADCO60245H .. RESPONDENT THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEHKC.260-A OF INCOME TAACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATEORDER DATED 29/05/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH,BENGALURUIN|APPEALPROCHKHBDINGITA|NO.|1643/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,JAYANT PATEL J.DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT It appears that the correct date of the order of|assessment1S 04.03.2014whereas|intheorderCIT (Appeals) it is wrongly typed as 04.03.2013. Hence, theoffice objection is dispensed with.| ot iaLearnedcounselfor.the|appellantshassubmitted that the matter is covered by the decision of thisCourt. Hence, we find it appropriate to take up the mainappeal itself for further consideration. 3.The appellants-Revenue have preferred thepresent appeal by raising the following substantial questionsof law: 3.The appellants-Revenue have preferred the aWhetherOnlthe factsandin|thecircumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified|in law in holding that income of the assessee isbusiness income even when assessing authorityhad rightly held that income falls under the head“Income from house property” considering theprovisions of the Act and materials on record?| D2 Whether the Tribunal’s order can be said|as perverse in nature since Tribunal has failed to consider the intention of the assessee in enteringinto agreements of lease whereby the buildinghas been let out on square feet basis whichmeans that the rent is basically earned for theSuper structure and such rent has been rightlyassessed as house property income’r 4We.haveheardMr.E.I.Sanmathi,learnedcounsel for the appellants-Revenue. 5Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue fairlyconcedes that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has reliedupon its earlier decision in the case ofDCIT -—vus- Velankan InformationSystemsPut.Ltd.1nNITA|Nos. 15071510/Bang/2010 dated 30.03.2012. Against which, theappellants-Revenue had preferred an appeal before thisCourt in ITA No.273/2012 and allied matters and this Courtvide its order dated 02.04.2013 has dismissed the appeal.He submits that the matter is carried by the appellants-Revenue before the Apex Court and the Special LeavePetition (SLP) is pending. 6.In view ot the decision ot this Court inITA No.273/2012 and allied matters dated 02.04.2013operating as on today, it cannot be said that any substantialquestion of law would arise for consideration as sought to becanvassed. However, in the event the Apex Court takes adifferentview,theRevenueMaytakeappropriateproceedings in accordance of law. subject to the aforesaid observations, the present|appeal isdismissed. SD/- |JUDGE|SD/-|JUDGETL|