High Court Karnataka High Court

Kamaladevi J Jain vs Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kamaladevi J Jain vs Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008
Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana


” WARD ‘:2 fax,’ HUBLI.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAE)

DATED “ms THE 2329 DAY 0:? sEPrEM;n_sEfR~–..29€i:3~

PREsEN::*; _ V _ V
THE HONBLE MR.JusT1ci§;.y§:3,_éABii5«}§;*r. ~. ”
THE HONTBLE Mg,.JusT;c:19:s,N;sg.’1Yé;NARAYg,ivA
MCOME ‘I’AX.V:APf;F,._!’§.L’, .1\i'(i).”_2: 1′.’}8_L2005
Between: H

KO?PIKAR F?._O!§D;_
HUBL1;a:=so 9022:.)

SMT. KAMALAm.\}: 99a9%~9gAmk.%%
V . APPELLANT
(By Sri é11§’1′;~.$R

PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGA.m;es’_’s-“V;~ mi
M.P.NO.51/BANG/03 ANS ALSO 1*:’A.1.fri’.;3{J}9;.{“‘3-;'(3′:a«s
DATED 19.12.03 FOR THE) AssEss;§jje’,N*i*..: 313::-s._Ié –. ”

l998-99.

THIS rm COMING 01%: ‘~..lf’OR ‘.§:I’EAl?IN.C{ ‘

mama J., DELIVERED THE ‘F=Q§;Low1N’a*2.:__ ‘

s 1

This being aggrieved
by t}:1s’.V ViI’1comc-tax Apmiiate
. _’ V Bsnch ‘C’ in
ITA.No .60:9/$’as;g;’.2{i(§:?»:”dated 19.12.2003 and also

fsr the assessment year 1998»-99

order passed by the Commissioner of

Hubli, who inmm. had conflrmed

‘ passsd by the assessing authsrity, wherein

“ti:€;&t1?fasnsactio:1 declared in the regular returns as cash

under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The substantial questions of Law arises for our

determination in this appeal are,

\9+J.

1) Whether the finding of the Income; .1
Tax Appellate Tribunal that the sale: U

transaction as revealed in the ~

returns filed are taxable under .Sfe_<_':i:io'1:a.:" _

68 of the Income-tax Aet;~is4pe§'ve1'se«fiQr V'
arbitrary for non consideratiefi oz' 'thew.
material fact as to whetller "the "

' that are sold under the._t:ransacifio1j1s 2
relied upon by the assesse are the 'V
goods which had betzrg' declared Ttjnder
the applimtion filed" Volmatary
Declaration ':)fI11(-§«oxI;e,' 1997,
which was accepted' by :1;h1"j:_remI1:1e?

2) Whateemexi? 3}

3. 1′ questions of law have
186/2004 arising on identical
facts a’x’1d i.’3w’ é2.9.2008 by a detailed erder

peQ11e’unoee

V T. reasons assigned in the said appeal,

which is applicable on all fours to the

facts” the preaent case, We answer the substantial

7 question of law No.1 in affirmatitve and substantiai

‘ of law No.2 as per final order and pass the

foilowing: