Parties v. Theassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another’as

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 PRESENT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL ANT) THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA| ITA No.66/2015 BETWEEN Ll.The Commissioner of Income-taxCentral Circle C R BuildingQueens Road.Bangalore.Central Circle C R BuildingQueens Road.Bangalore. iaThe Deputy Commissioner of Income-taxCentral Circle-1(2)C R BuildingQueens Road.Bangalore.Central Circle-1(2)C R BuildingQueens Road.Bangalore. ...Appellants (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND M/s. Davanam Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,#148, Surveyors streetBasavangudiBangalore-560 O04PAN NO..AABCD3880H. .... Responde (By Sri. A. Shankar and>ori. M. Lava, Advocates) This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax|Act 1961, to set aside the orders passed by the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No.151/Bang/2014 dated.2S OS.20O14andconfirmtheorderoT theAppellateCommissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore. This Appeal coming on for Orders this day,N. K.Patil, J.,delivered the following JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Revenue questioning the|correctness of the Order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the|Income.TaxAppellateTribunalpassedinITA|No.191/Bang/2014 confirming the order of the Appellate|Commissioner, confirming the order passed by the Deputy|Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1[{2],Bangalore, to consider the following substantial questions oflaw. aWhether, the Tribunal erred insettingasidethe.order|oftheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)with a direction to verify the claim ofpayment of taxes on the declared incomeand admit the appeal of the assessee inacase where no valid grounds have beenpleaded by the assessee for non-payment|of tax on the retuned income?. D2 Whether, the order of the Hon'ble|Tribunal 1s erroneous as it would renderthe provision of Section 249(4)(a) otlose?P. 3.|Whether, the Hon’ble Tribunal erred|in relying on the decision of this Hon’bleHigh Court in the case of D.Komalakshmtvs. DCIT when the facts are different?. ” 2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the| parties. 3.Learned Counsel for the respondent, at theoutset, submitted that the instant appeal filed by theappellants is liable to be dismissed following the Judgmentof this Court dated 11.12.2015 passed in ITA No.239/2015in the case otf‘M/s. Mookambika Associates Vs. TheAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another’aS| identical questions of law are involved in the said Judgment.Therefore, he submitted that the instant appeal may bedismissed, answering the substantial questions of law infavour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 4 In reply, learned Counsel for the Appellants Sri.K.V. Aravind, has not disputed the reliance placed by thelearned Counsel for the respondent. 5.The instant appeal filed by the appellants is|dismissed following the Judgment of this Court dated|11.12.2015 passed in ITA No.239/2015 in the case of|‘M/s.Mookambika Associates Vs. The Assistant Commissioner| of Income Tax and Another’' and tor the reasons statedtherein, answering the substantial questions of law in favour|of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Ordered|accordingly. AN/- Sd/-|JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE