-1- IN THE HIGH comm on KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 0613 DAY 0? AUGUST 2003 PRESENT "' THE HGINFBLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJHL_s_NAfrrsiV'_T'V: "
AND _ V
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE A;s.}~¢CHHAr§.I~RE ”
E.’I’.A. N0.’21$?'(‘~m04″
BETWEEN ' C R SHAIQKAR COFFEE PLANPER AGED ABoI.;¢-.53 w«;AR::;:_.
s/0 RAM:.CI1AN§3?E.vC;om:)I3R”«..’
AL8sML ESTATES’ * _»
BALLUPET 3203′: 573.254 ” _.
HASSA£€DIS’1′.RIC’.E’ _ ‘ …APPEL£..AN’I’
{By Sri js. saaniiakgvanv; FGR gm. s PARFHASARATHI, .mv.;
%%%%%
V’Vjmfi;5~Q1N*;:<:oMgissioz~:ER
'01? fNCO?~§E%TAX; gA_s;m
s:=Et_c:LaL«RArsc+vE_
MANGALORE ;_ RESPONDERT
* V {By sri K .VV'AaR1.&'i}IND, ADV.)
_ V A. , _'i'I~1I$'"I.'I1A IS FILED UNDER sacrnou 260A OF THE ERCOME TAX
" _1_97ég1 ARiSING cm' 0? ORDER DATED 16.2.2004 msssn IN rm NO.
-f.’.~s36*gBAi~ac;; 1999 {C.O.NO.49/Be&NG/3.999} FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
“if -.1 .995-97 PRAYING TO:
* .. 5:; FGRMUIATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIGNS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.
‘I:£
-3-
H) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASEDE THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2.2004
012* THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEARING 1*rA–.eNo,
586/BANG/1999 {C.O.NO. 49/BANG/1999) ere.
THIS I.’1″.A. comma ON FOR FINAL HEARINQ. -.TT)é;’»y_ e.
MANJUN[ATH.J., DEIJVERED THE FOLLOWENG:
JUDGMENQ
This appeal is by the a,ssessee’* ._c hal1engii1g.. iitlie
passed by the Income Tax . Ba13ga}ore
Bench, in [TA No.586/ ssiangx e§iat§d»..i1s.2.’2bO4 for the
assessment yeéf ‘L1′<;§ge€V,3;§}?'.< ' – _._
2. Wexhaévev for the parties.
. AV V” T’)*..:~ ag the of arguments, it is noticed by this
of the same estate wherein the mother of
the a party in FFA 910.216] 2004 on the same set
v.__ o’f facts questions of law raised. in ibis appeal, this Court
the appeal on 13.12.2097 Iemanding the matter to
};hee;assessing omccr for flesh consideration in the light of the
“‘=.,__: .’directions issued in rm N’o.229/2002 {K.M.Shasidhar Vs.
Income Tax Oficer, Chjckamagalur). In the cincuatastances, we
are of the opinion that without answering the question of law
6/.
-3-
mised in this appeal, the matte? may be zemanded the
Assessing Oficcr for fresh consideration following the
and to decide the case as directed by us in V’
Income Tax Oficer, Chickamaga1ur,”*”i:3_ ‘
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed
JL