Vinod Kumar S Jain vs Income Tax Officer on 22 September, 2008

_ AND ;iP

S; :NcQfiE fAX.dFE1cER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 22"'nAy OF SEPTEMBER 2QQBfi":fP>

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEPVIG;SABfiAH§T*S ivj.'

AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:éE S N.sfiTzAmARAfAfiA~~"
INCOME TAX APPEAL NG«26§/2SO4»_AVP
BETWEEN: V 'R A HP' 2
SR1 VINOD KUMAR»S.JA1N"JS=VV
SUPREME PHARMA¢,'- - . 2

KOPPIKAR ROAD, ;~P..S
HUBLI ' '. =~*

... APPELLANT

(By sri A sHANKAR;»Ab€);' )

=WARB*2_:3}ufx_"P

HUBLZ P"~'
'.'* RESPONDENT

{By é:iVg v SHESHACHALA, ADV.,)

V "._§HIS I.T.A. FILED U/S. 260A OF THE INCOME

V, .;$A; ACT, 1961 ARISING our 9? ORDER DATED
P=_23;12.2003 PASSED IN ITA NO. 622/BANG/2003 FOR

v._ '»VTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998~99 PRAYING THAT THIS
' »4jHON'BLE COURI' MAY BE PLEASEB TO FORMULATE THE

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO. 622/BANG/2003 DATED



23.12.2003 ON THE VELIDITY OF ASSESSMENf FOR THE
ASSESSMENf YEAR 1998~99 ETC.

fHES I.T.A. CGMING ON FOR HEARING TH:s7pA§;fW

5333331! 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

This appeal by the assessee is filed beifigfVr

aggrieved by the order passeq by"the_lnoone«ta%
Appellate Tribunal,f Bangalore*gBen¢h_ fie; in
:TA.No.522/sanga/2oo3*ffiatéd.gfS}12;29o3 for the
assessment year. 199a~é§;.§sgf;£m;§gg the order
Passed by _{th§"h;C§mmié$i§h§?ii"or« Income~tax
(Appealsl;ifluhlifiohhoainturn had confirmed the
order passed by the as§e§sing authority, wherein

the transaotjonuoeciared in the regular returns

' "as unexplaied investment under Section 69 of the

'>:na§meetag.Ac§;v1961.

l2.*fhe substantial questions of law arises

'7fior+our determination in this appeal are,

1) Whether the finding of the Income-Tax
Appellate fribunal that the sale
transaction as revealed in the regular
returns filed are taxable under Section 69
of the Income-tax Act, is perverse or
arbitrary for non consideration of the
material fact as to whether the goods that

\g2h



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 lncome\_
Scheme 1997, which was accepted 'by fith§ ux

revenue?

2} What order?

3. The above substantial qsestions*of law'WA

have been answered in :TA';V1No,18é;*2é04 on
identical facts and law decided on 22l9e2G®8 by
a detailed order prononnced senarately.

appeal; ITAlN§318€j2GQ4¢_which is applicable on
all fours to theWfects of the present case, we

answer the substantial question of law No.1 in

. daffirfiative and sfibstantial question of law No.2

ias"§er final order and pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The order passed by

A {fine *Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore

-Faeecni ‘C’ in ITA.No.622/Bangalore/2003 for

u< assessment year 1998-99 confirming the order

passed by the Commissioner of Income~tax Hubli,

who inturn had confirmed the order passed by the

Via

Assesssing Officer, Hubli is set aside and t

'1';_/

matter is remitted to the Assessing Office: t_

passing fresh orders in the light tqf

observations made in the body at the Crder[ a

eM_ tt'@3éhL§F4_t:m.

7″595

Nd/

crE,”,

‘@tfieM”‘