IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 2 V
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMB. f§R,V
PRESENT A
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K:.1.,MANJ':UN';4\T'H ' 7
AND . .. «.
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALRAVIND,I{{
rm Nd';3.:i;/2004;-. T
BETWEEN in 3
1. The Commissioner Qf_I:'r:V:;o.z'i_iVef;ta§c.V '
C.R.Bui1ding{,Q_ue¢'ns ' '
Bailgaloreif AA
2. The De13z,;tyi_ Cor1ixni.sVusixon€:r'V'0f En(:0me---tax,
circle-»;--8[1v}, C:£;;Bus.1d:ng; "Queens Road,
Ba11gaI_0_1'é.*T; -- I
(By 811. M'.V,Sesf12fi_ch;{'la;"'Adv0cate]
%%%%%
M V/ Balfijl iflwééncies,
4.4'/A, 3%"?-1\"&aLii1v.I'ndustria1 town,
R9»-_Iaj1nagari;j_ Bangaiore.
Respondent:
T WV”(ByLSrf.’R..V.S.Naik, for M / s King and Partridge,
» . ‘2’\,cV1v(‘)vz:ates)
53/
Appeflantst
This Appeal is filed under Section 26053 dofivln-some
Tax Act, 1961 praying to allow the appeai andv jseti’asid.e_
the order passed by the WIVTAT ‘-fiT(SS’j.V
No.87/Bang/2002, dated 10-11.’42o0at and Con_fi1fir1’the
order passed by the Deputy Co.mn1is.s’ior1er’~ _”of “metoi-;::e
Tax, Circ1e–8[1], Bangalore. _
This appeal coming “‘o1j:f=.for day,
MANJUNATH J. deiivered the__foi1owir1g: 7
The Revenue h:as”‘»eomde appeal being
aggrieved passed by the
ITAT, B_anga}Vo’1 é1:.;_ iT{E-KS)’ A -. / Bang/ 2002, raising
the fofioxnring.siiiistantia1_:questions of law:
Wi1_ether::_”the Tribunal was correct in
ign.oring”thesta::ement of one Sri.Chander Sha
in of the firms of the assessee’s
financier of the assessee that 3 to
.”*d5°/yo’ taking place outside the books of
aeeotirit which was not disputed and the
.. diserepancy in stock which was added back by
it ffthe Assessing officer was totally ignored in
5/
order to arrive at a conclusion that”‘-trim
additions could not be made and *
recorded a perverse finding.
2. Whether the arrived
perverse find that ‘lt..hv”e~..__departments h._:as*~rijot
found any material e_viden–c_e to’ the
additions rnad:e;”~p.. search’ when
admittedly there one of the
parties well the deficit of
stocirto ppstitpfpjortj’:fhe._claiIflpof department?
iiii ” Eh elrutlhe ‘Tribnna1 relied on the View
e~Xpressed’case of the same group of
assessee vVhe’n case had to be appreciated
;’on the facts and circumstances prevailing in
that “case landlthe entire set of facts could not
to one other case and consequently,
no consideration by the Tribunal in
respect of facts and controversy which arose in
the” present case.’?
6/
2. In connected matter in ITA No.3
very same order of the Tribunal has been”‘::set»;3siVde V’
us and the matter has been re:-..nétndedVt_o
for fresh consideration as. the ‘order of»t.i1ev”‘1’ribur1:::I*~t»
suffers from iilegafity. Thedfeetbre’ vddégbbeal is
allowed and the order Tax
Appellate Tribunai iefl matter is
remanded Tribunal,
Bangalore tn accordance with
law us in ITA 312/2004
Sdfli
Iudje
Sdff
fudge
“9 n§mfl5