1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.201 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-12, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. MYSORE MINERALS LTD., NO.39, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-1. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18-12-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.955/BANG/2011 AND 971/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO: 2 I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18-12-2012 PASSED BY ITAT, BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.955/BANG/2011 AND 971/BANG/2011. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for appellant has entered appearance through video conferencing. Mr.A.Shankar, learned Senior counsel along with Mr.M.Lava, learned counsel for assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment year 2007-08. Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2013, had admitted appeal on following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether in given facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to make additional claim that is not claimed in 3 return of income and Appellate Authority has power to consider such new claim not made in return of income which in assessee s case was filed belatedly, while clear provisions of Section 139(5) allow revised return to be filed if original return has been filed within time allowed under Section 139(1)? 2) Whether in given facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition made on basis of difference between sale price recorded in books and prevailing market price which is also supported by MMTC rate list, ignoring fact that price of Iron Ore is subject to revision on basis of market fluctuation and MMTC rate list is bench mark? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that first substantial question of law involved in this appeal has been rendered academic in view of subsequent events and in view of order dated 13.11.2013 passed in ITA No.172/2014. It is also submitted that second substantial question of law is covered by decision rendered by Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2017 passed in ITA No.146/2013 and connected matters. 4 4. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is evident that first substantial question of law, on account of subsequent developments, has been rendered academic, whereas second substantial question of law has been answered against revenue vide order dated 22.03.2017 passed by Bench of this Court in ITA No.146/2013 and connected matters. 5. For aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Bangalore / Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-12, Bangalore v. Mysore Minerals Ltd