High Court Karnataka High Court

B G Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer on 22 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B G Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer on 22 September, 2008
Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana
    ..... 

'*1(D§"s;i,M=V«éDasHAcHALA, ADV.,)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWI-RD

DATED THIS THE 22"'DAY OF SEPTEMBER :O08CT17='

PRESENT .NW.

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V;G{SAEHAHIT'j T'?u'**

ANDTC=
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT1cE_$fa;sA¢YAfiARAiAMA

INCOME TAX A§PEA£ §O;1s7/2004

BETWEEN: A, _w"T-.v

SR1 B.G.AOARwAL}3=V.'g 3'" ". "'-wv
ITTAGI MARUTHI,GALLI;,O,V, *'w5v .
HUBL1. V, QT; '' 'f-

_. .... - x  Hg__ ._._ ~,_h; ... APPELLANT
(By Sri A SHADKAR; ADV ; :_

AND:

 

INCOME TAX OFFICBRQE '
WARD 1(3) '

. . RES PONDENT

'T"~TH:s7§:{D}A. FILER) U/S. 260A. OF THE INCOME
TAX _ACT;_}l961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

'V19.12:2Oo3' PASSED IN ITA NO.613fBANG/2003 FOR

"THE AS.S_}'3'SSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PRAYING THAT THIS

_'gI'iC'rN'-.BLE CQURT MAY BE PLEASED TO FDRMULATE THE'.

2 "Stf.B_ST..'%I%fTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND
  A37;LOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE. URDER OF THE
 TRIBUNAL BEARING" ITA NO.613/BANG/F2003 DATED



19.12.2003 ON THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE

ASSESSMEN} YEAR 1998*99 ETC.

ems 3;':-A COMING ON FOR HEARING THI§~'~~«--DAi_;§'

SABEAHIT 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT

This appeal by the assessee ie fiiefl being ,_f

aggrieved by the order passed byfithe Incemeétaigu

Appellate Tribunal, Bangaieéé Befichte5C;@ in
1″TA.No. 613/Banga/2003. dggteci””1’9;’j;2″;t2_oo3 ifar” the

as$essment year 1998~§9i dcfifirminga the order

(Appeals)}WiHu§li,?§Wh§viintutWWhed confirmed the
order pésged thy ithe”-eSfié;sing authority” dated

30.3.2001, iiiwhimin *t..h”e«.i.’-?transact,i.on declared in

_ the vzeguier returnfi. as unexplaied investment

A”gnder»$ectionE€9 of the Incomemtax Act, 1961.

2, The Substantial questions of law arises

—fgvfOr our determination in this appeal are,

1) Whether the finding of the Income–Tazt

Appellate Tribunal that the =$ai¢_V-

txansaction as revealed in the .:egula:ft_3

returns filed are taxable under Sectionf69

of the Income–tax Act,f”is4lperverSe_ or?

arbitrary for non consideration ‘¢f’ the %f

material fact as to yhether the gefiaa that
are sold under the traneactions relied age:
by the aesesse are the eame goods which had
been declared under ithe. application filed
under Voluntary Vibeciaretionfi of Income
Scheme 199?,_ which :wasfl,acce§ted by the

revenue?§

2)_What”a£dér3,

3. The abeve enbatantial questions of law

have been answered_in 3Te.No.186/2084 arising on

“ident§eal facts and law decided on 22.9.2008 by

Vda’detai1edVorde: pronounced separately.

V4- ,Forw the reasons assigned in the said

H’dd”a@peal,z£TA.No.186/2004, which is applicable on

«”ail*fonrs to the facts of the present case, we

enssiier the substantial question of law No.1 in

W

affirmative and substantial question of law No}2

as per final order and pass the following:___”*,VV”‘*”t:”~l.V”‘A

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. ‘I’.h’e’ ~orde–:r

the Income-tax Appellate Trl.&bu}?_i:alV,

Bench ‘C’ in ITA.No.aii’3;(aan§’a-1}§re{2§)_oé._;’wioi:
assessment year 1998-99 Vdoitrder
passed fly the Commiaazi”o_ne::ir “”v3IV:§Ae:’ornbe~tax Hubli
dated 27.3.2003 w21oAA…i.x:1._1::–t1r.’r1,VA:ha”d”.io’einf’irmed the
order passed & ” ‘~——*l;ficer, Ward-
I(3), Hublli. aside and the
matter la ilfiioolne-tax Officer,
Ward~I(3)’v}_ fresh orders in

the light ofwthe VobsAe~.r’Va–tions made in the body

AA …..

S

Sdl-e__
311599.

guéée