Disposed

Prathibha Jewellery House v. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024WA/6812/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order relegating the assessee to the Tribunal against CIT(A) orders was rendered academic because the Tribunal granted relief on merits and revenue's appeals were disposed of as within monetary limits. Via memo of both sides, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal as infructuous, leaving the legal issue open.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal treated as academic and disposed of with questions of law left open; IA No.1/2017 disposed as infructuous.

Prathibha Jewellery House Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48138-DB WA No. 6812 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 6812 OF 2017 (T-IT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE, REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. S.N.SHARATH KUMAR, S/O SRI. S. NARASIMHULU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.1/1, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 025.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:48138-DB WA No. 6812 of 2017

¶20

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVIRAJ .Y.V AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.24646-24651/2015 DATED 07/11/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶28

At the outset, Sri. Dilip.M states, his name in the

¶29

cause-list has been shown for the appellant, which is erroneous as he appears for the respondents. Sri. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant agrees with the submission made by Sri. Dilip. For the purpose of record, we may state here that, the appeal was

¶30

filed by Sri. M.Lava, Advocate.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:48138-DB WA No. 6812 of 2017

¶33

Sri. Shankar has filed a memo dated

¶34

25.11.2024, which reads as under:

¶35

“ MEMO

¶36

1. The petitioner submits that this writ appeal was filed on 11.12.2017 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2464624651/2015 dated 07.11.2017. The appellant had, in the writ petition, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 11.02.2015 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11.

¶37

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) instead of following the binding judicial decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 210 (Kar.) followed the decision of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Trilok Singh Dhillon v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh), on which decision the SLP was dismissed.

¶38

3. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.11.2017 relegated the appellant to file appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the Tribunal has given relief on

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:48138-DB WA No. 6812 of 2017

¶41

the merits and the appeals filed by the revenue before this Hon'ble Court against the order of the Tribunal have disposed off as being within the monetary limits.

¶42

4. In the light of the above facts, this writ appeal becomes academic as the appellant has obtained all reliefs on the merits of the matter as stated above.

¶43

5. The appellant therefore submits that the writ appeal may be treated as academic and disposed off with liberty to revive, if the occasion arises and further submits that the questions of law raised in this writ appeal may be kept open.

¶44

6. The petitioner prays this Hon'ble Court to pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondents agree with

¶46

the contents of the memo. According to Sri. Shankar, the issue whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’ for short] should have followed the judgment of this Court in C. Ramaiah Reddy -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2011) 339 ITR 210

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48138-DB WA No. 6812 of 2017

¶48

(Kar.)] or the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Trilok Singh Dhillon -Vs.- Commissioner of Income

¶49

Tax [(2011) 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh)] (against

¶50

which the SLP was dismissed) has become academic.

¶51

Sri. Shankar states, the issue be left open to be decided in a more appropriate case. We order accordingly.

¶52

In view of the memo, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶53

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IA No.1/2017 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶54

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶55

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Prathibha Jewellery House v. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathibha Jewellery House v. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller Ksrtc Vs Sri Shafeeq Ahamed

Smt. S.N. Savithramma Vs Sri. K.K. Radhakrishna

M/S Psm Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Volvo Financial Services

M/S Biocon Limited Vs Shri.Santhosh Kumar Sarangi

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri. Bg Channappa

Bharath Chemical Industries Vs State of Karnataka