Ita/737/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri M J Siwani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ATBANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKARA Income Tax Appeal No. 737 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER |OK INCOME TAX.CRHNTRAL CIRCLEC.R. BUILDING|QUEENS ROADBANGALORE.»2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX.CENTRAL CIRCLE — 2(3)CR BUILDINGQUEENS ROADBANGALORE.APPBRLLANTS |By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.|_ AND: SHRI M J SIWANL.M/S H M CONSTRUCTIONS|GBRNEBEVA HOUCUNNINGHAM ROADBANGALORE.RESPONDENT. |By Sri S Parthasarathy, Adv.| THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE.INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED|IO OC? .2OOPASSED|LN|TTA.NO.|459/BNG/2007,HOR THERASSBSSMEBNT YBAR 1999-200AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|MANJUNATH, J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JU DBiGMENT Order dated 25-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner| of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Bangalore and the confirmingorder dated 29-2-2008 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’, Bangalore, pertaining torespondent-assessee for the assessment year 1999-2000,|are called in question in this appeal. 2.The only substantial question of law raised by the. appellant in this case is as under: 1.Whether the Appellate Authorities werebound to record a finding, as to whether50% of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- wasliable to be brought to tax in the hands ofthe Assessee on substantive basis orregular assessment?bound to record a finding, as to whether50% of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- wasliable to be brought to tax in the hands ofthe Assessee on substantive basis orregular assessment? 3.Heard Sri K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for|the appellants-revenue and Sri 8S Parthasarathi, learnedcounsel for the respondent-assessee. 4On an earlier occasion, the tribunal has set aside theorder of the assessing officer in the block assessmentproceedings and remanded the matter to the assessingofficer to consider the case of the assessee on merits. Now,the question is that when the matter is pending before theassessing officer, whether an order passed by the authority-below by way of protective assessment has to be keptpending till the assessment is over? 5.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it isnot in dispute that the case of the assessee has to beconsidered by the assessing officer on merits and inaccordance with law. After the proceedings attainedfinality, it is open for the revenue to revive protectiveassessment order. 3�.%01�01:�(<=):�=<2:$)(0%=*��01%2�(;;:(B�%2�+%2>%22:+��� ����������������������K;LI