Dismissed

Sri M R Janakiram (Huf) v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2019WTA/2/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the core issue regarding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, is academic since the tribunal granted the substantial relief sought by the appellant and no appeal was filed by the revenue. Consequently, the Court did not decide on the reopening power but dismissed the appeal with liberty to revive it if

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with liberty to revive in the event revenue files an appeal against the tribunal order.

Sri M R Janakiram (Huf) Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

W.T.A.NO.2/2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M.R. JANAKIRAM (HUF) GOKULA HOSUE, GOKULA MATHIKERE, BENGALURU – 560 054.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. S. ANNAMALAI AND SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 27A OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

¶18

¶19

AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH BANGALORE IN CO.NO.91/BANG/2018 ARISING OUT OF WTA 27/BANG/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 DATED:27.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

We have heard Sri.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for appellant and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent.

¶23

We find that grounds urged, issue involved and substantial question raised in this appeal are all academic in nature, inasmuch as substantial relief which appellant had sought for before tribunal has been granted. However, issue relating to right of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for re-opening the assessment has

¶24

¶25

not been dealt by the tribunal, though assessee had filed cross-objections. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee, being aggrieved by the order of rejection of cross-objections by tribunal.

¶26

Sri.A.Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant is correct in contending that in the event of revenue were to come in appeal against the order of the tribunal granting relief to the assessee, appellant herein should be permitted to pursue its grievance with regard to the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice for re-opening.

¶27

The issue relating to re-opening of assessment being academic in nature and as on date there being no appeal filed by the revenue against grant of relief to assessee, we do not propose to go into the right of Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment particularly in the backdrop of revenue having not filed any appeal against the order of the tribunal whereunder substantial relief to the assessee has already been granted. As such, this appeal is dismissed with liberty

¶28

¶29

to the assessee to revive this appeal in the event of revenue preferring or filing appeal against the order of tribunal dated 27.11.2018.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

Sri M R Janakiram (Huf) v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M R Janakiram (Huf) v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Sridhara Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Peoples Education Society Vs Dr.G.S.Prakash

Sri S v Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjundappa Vs Sri Rudra

Sri M R Janakiram(Huf) Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S Kottaram Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner