The Income Tax Officer Vs Mr. Sanath Kumar Murali

MR. SANATH KUMAR MURALI AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MR. M V SANATH KUMAR ADDRESS AT NO.102-A, VANAKANAHALLI BENGALURU-562 106. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV. FOR C/R1.)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:5830-DB WA No. 968 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 7647/2023 (T-IT) DATED 24.05.2023 b. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASECF INSUFFICIENT/SUFFICIENTAPPEAL IS IN TIME/BARRED BY TIMETHE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED OFFICE OBJECTIONS1. COURT FEE 100/- TO BE MADE GOOD.2. ORDER DATED TO BE CORRECTLY STATED AT AGGRIVED PARA IN BOTH SETS OF WRIT APPEAL.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶24

This intra-court appeal seeks to call in question the

¶25

learned Single Judge's Order dated 24^th May, 2023 whereby respondent-Assessee's Writ Petition No.7647 of 2023 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to him as under:

¶26

" 21.Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'A' dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act is set aside and the noticed at Annexure-B dated 21.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act by the respondent No.1 for the Assessment Year 20162017 is set aside. "

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5830-DB WA No. 968 of 2023

¶28

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the revenue vehemently argues that the impugned order being contrary to the scheme of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, once an amount of Rs.50.00 lakh is ascertained as escaped income for assessment, the interference of the Writ Court was uncalled for.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the assessee, per contra, submits that merely because the concerned conveyance mentions Rs.55.00 lakh, that itself cannot be taken as the income escaping assessment inasmuch as the cost of acquisition to be deducted from it and if that is done, it would fall below the ceiling limit of Rs.50.00 lakh. This aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the assessee submits, was considered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sitting at Jabalpur in NITIN NEMA v. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX¹ and relief has been accorded to the Assessee of the kind after referring to the order impugned in this appeal.

¶30

1 (2023) 458 ITR 690.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:5830-DB WA No. 968 of 2023

¶33

He also tells us that challenge to the Jabalpur Bench's order has attained finality at the hands of the Apex Court in SLP No(C). 38708 of 2024 on 17.09.2024 and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge has secured imprimatur of the Apex Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶35

and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the views of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, to the effect that while assessing the quantum of escaped income in matters like this, the amount mentioned in the registered conveyance cannot be straight away taken without deducting the cost of acquisition therefrom. This apart, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case supra, followed the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court and later the challenge by the Revenue before the Apex Court of the Country has been repelled.

¶36