IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _
BATED THIS THE 22"" DAY or $§PTEMEEE[§QQ8E:'
PRESENT " H'A ' '
THE HON'BLE MR.Jusr1gE V;G%SABHA§f¢fifl
THE HON'BLE MR.JQEEICE'é{Ef$EiygNAREfANE
INCOME TAX EépEEE}Ec;2§§5gg§g
BETWEEN: V Hfl'VV V
SRI sAILEsEwv:9AEEL
SHIMPPI GALE1,;E; '
HUBLI MV___"' .... *~
' ' . APPELLANT
(Ey sri A sHANEAE;EEDv};.v)
AND :
'E_§EpuEY.cé§MisE:oNEE or xwcoma TAX
'CIECLE.lg{1}
HUBLI '~.*
'-- =5 RESPONDENT
E(Ey ér;’fi V SHESHACHALA, ADv.,)
._fEIS I.T.A. FII£E) U/S. 260A. or THE xwcona
4.’ _EAx. ACT, 1961 ARISING our or ORDER DATED
*¢_19.E2.2oo3 PASSED IN IEE NO. 624fBANG/2003 FOR
_EnE<.EssEssMENT YEAR 1998-99 PRAYING THAT THIS
E£.ON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASE!) TO FORMULATE THE
'"suEsTANw:AL QUESTION or LAW STATED THEREIN AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA NO. 624/BANG/2003 DATED
19.12.2003 {DN THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE}
ASSESSMENT YEAR 3.998-99 ETC.
THIS l.T.A. COMING on FOR HEARING enrs tar,
sasnanxr J., DELIVERED was FOLLOWING: ” =Jtra
JUGHENT
This appeal by the assessee is filed being
aggrieved by the order passed by th¢::ficame+tag*e
Appellate Tribunal, Bafiéélore”H$€nohVhfE} in
ITA.No.624fBanga/2303 dated ;l§;l2.i§O3 “tor the
assessment year i99s+99-l¢oafl:aing the order
passed by _ the : é§maiaai5n¢;7~ sf Income-tax
(Appeals); Hn%li{‘@ho intern had confirmed the
order_passed’hy_the’assessin§ authority, wherein
the transaotion declared in the regular returns
as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-
tax Act, l96l}”l
V’3},lhe,substantial questions of law arises
for our.determination in this appeal are,
ll) Whether the finding of the Income~Tax
Appellate Tribunal that the sale
transaction as revealed in the regular
returns filed are taxable under Section 68
of the Income-tax Act, is perverse or
arbitrary for non consideration of the
material fact as to whether the goods that
are sold under the transactions relied
upon by the assesse are the same goods
which had been declared under the
application filed under Voluntary
\}/3
Declaration of Income Scheme 1997, whieh
was accepted by the revenue?
2) What order?
3. The above substantial_qnestionsio§¢1aw 3
have been answered in ITA.No.l86/EOC4 arising on*ye
identical facts and law decided on 22.9figQQs syll
a detailed order pronounced separatelylh:
4. For the reasons Waggignefi Lin the said
appeal, ITA.fiogi35/Zfibégtwhieh ls senlicable on
all fours toVthésfaets*of:t5§ firesent case, we
answer the snbstantiah qnestion of law No.1 in
affirmative éfifi,$hbstantial question of law No.2
as per finalorder and ease the following:
sRDER
l”.Vl”lhe’abpeal is allowed. The order passed by
1the;lInoomeFtag Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
Beneh VF¢’@’ in lTA.No.624/Bangalore/2003 for
‘uassessment year l998–99 confirming the order
1 passes by the Commissioner of Income~tax Hubli,
“‘who intern had confirmed the order passed by the
lxVassesss1ng Officer is set aside and the matter
is remitted to the assessing officer for passing
\;}»
fresh orders in the light of the observatflofis
made in the body of the order.
‘4,f3udge
Nd/
3d;§_;j j
1ud%*’e