IN THE HIGH comm' 05* KA»RNA'§§§§%,g" f " CXRCUET BENCH AT l;{Z>If1A-?§WA£§*\ ' . _ DATED was THE 91% _:;Ay Q15 'A1§Rz:,2To}:§§.i._ ««. THE HONBLE LLGUNJAAEJ TH E;_~H{3~;§;i§_%LE::MR.L RAHIM N"<:3,233 09' 2006 1. THE"CQMM'ISf:'3»IONEEZ.__O'I4' INCQME Tax' K}§£?9§.§E9BEiOE COMfvEEFECIAL COMPLEX QPP. CIVIL E-IOSPIVTAL ' BELGAUIK/i~:§9 0 00; 'f:~iE: ASST. COMMISSIONER OF' .. " Ts:-»I.C:3§e:%12;'TAX, CERCLE~1 A 23231;r:;;a!,}:vI--v~' .. APPELLANTS {B'f'Si?'§.AARAVIND KUMAR, Am.) HAND: " 3 ' 1w_ §;"_:%.RUN ENGENEERING woszxs _ 'iJ§'¥'z§B/EBAGH, KHANAPUR ROAD " BELGAUM RESPONDENT
{BY SRi SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADV.,)
THIS IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF LT. ACT 1961
ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31«08-2005 PEXSSEI3 iN ITA
:2:
NQ.306/PNJ/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ..’1’~99-8599,
PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASSL;»’:fc; V.
i FORMULATE THE SUBS’I’AN’1′}-AL’ ‘QUE€3’FIQNS~» SOF’ V –{.’AW..
STATED THEREIN ”
ii ALLOW THE APPEAL AND S’ETF__ASIDE*–TI£E ASSSES.
PASSED SY THE £*mi:*,_ PANAJP BEN!’-3l.~IA,” IN I’FA
{$0.306/PNJ/2004 DA’1’E£.>’*~:;f1~oS420SS ANDn. GQNFIRM 1. ‘
‘THE OESEE PASSED BY THE.ASSESSING_I=OFi?ECER, IN
THE INTEREST 09’ JUSTICE AND mumz. _
THIS INCOME TAx..AjPEP:%;A:, V;.S”COi\AA:NS ON FOR FINAL
HEARING ‘THIS DAY, AJI’I’_TJ ‘SI3’r§aA:;~.J;, “DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: _ , V
T}”A1’1:-‘§Va’ppea1 The substantiai questien of I
law fgrmulatéci this Sppééi by the Revenue in its memorandum
V’ _<::»f af3f3Sz~3__1.._raadS thtisr ———- ~ "
{E}. 'V Vwhsther payments made beycnd due dates as
" S ' w 'pI'.E}*»$CI"1'b€d u,'S.43I{3 rfw SSc.36(1){va) and 2&4) can
.~ ~ _ he condoned ?
‘ Vwhether the Appeiiate Authariity and Tribunai were
u 3 correct in hoiding that “due date” Stated in
Sec.36{1}(va} can be condcsned thmugh Statute does
not pmvide for ‘P
2. A pemsai of Substantiai question of iaw formuiated
in the present Sppeai, it is Seen that the question involved in both
thase appeals are Substantiaily the Same. It is aiso izmzmghi to G111′ %
f
notice that the subject matter is covered by judgment 4.
[TA No.85] 2008. Foiiowing the reasons statégd ‘V
appeai also deserves to be dismissed. Appéal £3
accordingly.
X
-Iudgé
BNS