The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle/ The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3) v. Dowell & Co. Ltd. (Now Known As United Spirits Ltd.) - 2015-LL-0123-92

Citation	2015-LL-0123-92
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle/ The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3)
Respondent Name	Dowell & Co. Ltd. (Now Known As United Spirits Ltd.)
Court	HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	23/01/2015
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	incentive scheme • sales tax
Bot Summary:	The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal, which held that the amount representing sales tax deferred under 3 the sales tax deferred loan incentive scheme is to be deemed as paid and therefore not taxable. The following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reasons recorded for reopening of assessments had no nexus and the entire information was available with the Assessing Officer and therefore the reopened assessments was without jurisdiction, invalid and consequently was cancelled 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to establish their case and the order passed u/s.144 of the Act was required to be set aside and the matter remitted back for fresh adjudication became academic in view of the reassessment being set aside 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs.13,78,41,600/- sales tax amount collected and not paid during the 4 current assessment year will not be hit by Section 43B of the Act in view of the Board circular and the Bombay Sales Tax Act 4. Dealing with the liability of the sales tax, this Court had an occasion to consider the said question of law in the assessee s case itself in Income Tax Appeal No.899/2008 decided on 02.09.2014, where the said question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Insofar as reopening of the assessment is concerned, as the assessee is succeeding on merits, the said question has become purely academic and it is not necessary to answer.

1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA ITA No. 434/2009 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: Mc. DOWELL & Co., LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS UNITED SPIRITS LTD.,) No.51, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.R. ANURADHA, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.04.2009 PASSED IN ITA NO. 138/BANG/2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA No.138/BANG/2009, DATED: 03.04.2009 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N. KUMAR J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Smt. S.R. Anuradha, learned counsel takes notice to respondent. 2. revenue has preferred this appeal against order passed by Tribunal, which held that amount representing sales tax deferred under 3 sales tax deferred loan incentive scheme is to be deemed as paid and therefore not taxable. 3. following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal. 1. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that reasons recorded for reopening of assessments had no nexus and entire information was available with Assessing Officer and therefore reopened assessments was without jurisdiction, invalid and consequently was cancelled? 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to establish their case and order passed u/s.144 of Act was required to be set aside and matter remitted back for fresh adjudication became academic in view of reassessment being set aside? 3. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that sum of Rs.13,78,41,600/- sales tax amount collected and not paid during 4 current assessment year will not be hit by Section 43B of Act in view of Board circular and Bombay Sales Tax Act? 4. Dealing with liability of sales tax, this Court had occasion to consider said question of law in assessee s case itself in Income Tax Appeal No.899/2008 decided on 02.09.2014, where said question was answered in favour of assessee and against revenue. 5. Insofar as reopening of assessment is concerned, as assessee is succeeding on merits, said question has become purely academic and it is not necessary to answer. It is made very clear that Tribunal has remanded matter to assessing authority for fresh consideration. 5 6. assessing authority shall consider it afresh excluding point, which was concluded in this judgment. 7. Smt. S.R. Anuradha, is permitted to file power within four weeks, from today. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sbs* Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle/ Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3) v. Dowell & Co. Ltd. (Now Known As United Spirits Ltd.)

Metadata

Judgment