Wp/6467/2015 Of Shri B R Ramaraju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF SBPTBMBEBR 2015. BEKORE, THR HON’BLEB MR. JUSTICK RAM MOHAN REDDY "WRIT PETITION NO.6467 OF 20105 (IT)CONNBCTED WITH "WRIT PETITION NOS.6470 & 26074 OF 2015 (TIT) "WRIT PETITION NO.6469 OF 2015 (TIT) IN W.P.NO.6467/2015 BE ITWEH SHRI B.R RAMARAJU,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,9/O SRI B.C.RAJASHEKAR,NO.40/1,KHAZI STREET,MOHAMMADAN BLOCK,BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE-560 OO4. _.. PHTITIONER (BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FORSRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) ANI 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 OO1. 2.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD), CENTRAL RANGE,BANGALORE 560 OO]. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE )_ | THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226& 22/ OF THRE CONSTITULIION OF INDIA PRAYING TQUASHTHRASSESSMENTORDERDTD.30.11.2011PASSED U/S.193C R.W.S.143/3] OF THE ACT BY THE R-2.JANNEX-A} AND ETC. IN W.P.NOS.6470 & 26074/2015 BHIWHREB SMT. KAMALA RAJSHEKAR (DECD), REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEIR,SRI B RANJAN KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,»/O LATE B C RAJASHEKAR,NO.71,KHAZI STREET,MOHAMMADAN BLOCK,BASAVANGUDI,BANGALORE-560 OO4. _.. PHTITIONER (BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FORSRI. S PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|CENTRAL CIRCLE,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 OO1.CENTRAL CIRCLE,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 OO1. 2.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD) CENTRAL RANGE,BANGALORE 560 001.(OSD) CENTRAL RANGE,BANGALORE 560 001. . RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THESEWRITPRTITIONS|ARERILEBDUNDERARTICLES 2296 & 227 OF THR CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3 PRAYINGTO|QUASHTHRASSEKSSMENTORDERDT.30.11.2011 PASSED U/S 193 R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACTBY THE R-1(ANNX-A) AND ETC. IN W.P.NO.6469/2015 BRTWHREN SHRI B.R ANJAN KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,9/O SRI LATE B C RAJASHEKAR,MOHAMMADAN BLOCK,BASAVANGUDI,BANGALORE-560 OO4. _.. PHTITIONER (BY SRI. P. DINESH, ADVOCATE FORoR. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) ANI 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDINGS,,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 OO1.CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDINGS,,QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE-560 OO1. 2 |THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|(OSD) CENTRAL RANGE,C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD,BANGALORE 560 001.(OSD) CENTRAL RANGE,C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEEN’S ROAD,BANGALORE 560 001. . RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEE RALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226.& 22/ OF THRE CONSTITULIION OF INDIA PRAYING TQUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.11.2011 PASSEDU/S 193 R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE R-2(ANNX-A)|AND EITC. THESEWRIT|PRTITIONS|COMING|ONFORPRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE)COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER since common questions of law and that of factarise for decision making, with the consent of the|learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed|together, finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. Petitioners having conveyed certain immovableproperties tor a valuable consideration during the|assessment year 2009-2010, are said to have filedreturns declaring a certain total income, claiming|expenditure towards brokerage, eviction charges and|cost of improvements which when disallowed, by orderdated30.11.2011, Annexure-A,ot the JointCommissioner of the Income Tax (OSD), Central Range,Bangalore, preferred a revision petition under Section|204 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whence, theCommissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (Central),Bangalore, having noticed lack of relevant material| constituting substantial legal evidence of the claims ofbrokerage, eviction charge and cost olf improvements,|declined to interfere with the order under revision and|by order dated 27.3.2014, rejected the petitions. Hencethese petitions. constituting substantial legal evidence of the claims ofbrokerage, eviction charge and cost olf improvements,|declined to interfere with the order under revision and|by order dated 27.3.2014, rejected the petitions. Hencethese petitions. 3. Learned counsel is unable to point out torelevant material constituting legal evidence over theclaim of expenditure incurred by the petitioners and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to thereasons, findings and conclusion arrived at by the|authorities1n theordersimpugned|callingfor|interference. Petitions rejected. © la od/-|JUDGE|