AND 'V IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22"" EAT OF SEPTEMBER TOEE5] f*'" PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTTcEIy.G;sEBfiAETT*'*f5_~~T "N5-. . THE HoN'BLE MR.JUsT1cE°s;E.EATEAEERAEAEE INCOME TAE#§gEEAEmEpTgE§%2oo4'TAT BETWEEN: 'T T R EV ETD T sR1.KATLAsH OEMHHRJAR BELLARY GALEI_ ;"_..' ... APPELLANT (By sxi-.3 'S}£ANKZiR~;A'-.1*T£%'£_%"i' ) T»VIRc9RE TAX GEEICER 'WARDH1_(3)flTHS"¥ HUELTA."=' A " RESPONDENT 7._4',(By 5:: M V SHESHACHALA, ADv.,) "",'» THIS I.T.A FILEEi U/S. 26OAE or THE INCOME ax «TAX: ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED T*.23,12.2003 PASSED IN ITA NO. 607/BANG/2003 FOR V._ v,THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PRRYING THAT THIS "'~_jHoN'BLE COURT? MAY BE PLEASED TO FQRMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO. 607/BANG/2003 DATED 23.12.2003 ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998~99 ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING on FOR HEARING THIS bnf, $333331! 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is filed beingli
aggrieved by the order passed by the Income~tanh
Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 5’Cf “in
ITA.No.607/Banga/2003a dated ‘fifi i2,2oo difor the
assessment year 1998499 nconfirmingi;the order
(Appeals), Kahlil who intern had confirmed the
order passeduhyithe-assessingvauthority, wherein
the transactionfdeclared.in the regular returnS
as unexplaiedvineestmehttander Section 69 of the
Incomaétax Aet,Ll961l
” ii. The substantial questions of law arises
for ofir deterfiination in this appeal are,
xdL1)’wWhether the finding of the Income~Tax
V”Appellate Tribunal that the sale
‘* transaction as revealed in the regular
returns filed are taxable under Section 69
of the Incomemtax Act, is perverse or
arbitrary for non consideration of the
material fact as to whether the goods that
are sold under the transactions relied upon
by the assesse are the same goods which had
been declared under the application filed
under Voluntary Declaration of Income
\},§
Scheme 1997, which was accepted by ‘the7,
revenue?
2) What order?
3. The above substantial q¢§s£iafigfi9r.i§wnr
have been answered in ITA@§b,186/2Q04iarising”on
identical facts and law decided on é2;§,2Q§8 by
a detailed order pronoaneed aebarately.
4. For gthefl reasons} assidhedllin the said
appeal, ITAyfieLl§éf2QO§g khich is applicable on
all foers”to the faots of the present case, we
answer the substantialafiaestion of law No.1 in
affirmatiee and substantial question of law No.2
,_as per final order and pass the following:
ORDER
“_”t$he”a§peal is allowed. The order passed by
Vl_the RIncome#tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
‘*v::”* in l’l’A.No.607/Bangalore/2003 for
lflasseesment year 1998-99 confirming the order
ll*passed by the Commissioner of Income–tax Hubli,
‘R”»»&ho inturn had confirmed the order passed by the
Assesssing Officer, Hubli is set aside and the
matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for
\93
passing fresh orders in the light of “fih§ _
observations made in the body of the ordéf. : m”~ ”
\’ _
Nd/