Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-(2)2, Bangalore v. P.Shyamaraju
[Citation -2020-LL-1020-44]

Citation 2020-LL-1020-44
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-(2)2, Bangalore
Respondent Name P.Shyamaraju
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 20/10/2020
Assessment Year 2004-05
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags warrant of authorization • retrospective effect • block assessment • issue of notice
Bot Summary: Whether, the appellate order passed by the tribunal annulling the assessment concluded in the respondent assessee s case on account of issuance of joint- warrant is sustainable in terms of the subsequent Amendment involving 4 insertion of Sec.292CC in the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified on facts and law to annulling block assessment order 3. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the revenue invited the attention of this Court to provisions of Section 292CC of the Act and submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Vandana Verma is misconceived as the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Devesh Singh , 76 DTR 0403 has remanded the matter after taking note of the amendment in the light of the provisions contained in Section 292CC of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee while inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph No.12 of the Order passed by the Tribunal submitted that in fact a discrepancy has crept in the Order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the assessee had never produced the Warrant of Authorization before the Tribunal but had produced a copy of the Panchanama, which has been described as Warrant of Authorization. The fact whether the assessee had produced the Warrant of Authorization or the Panchanama can only be ascertained by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the Order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Tribunal and to remit the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.132 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL, C.R. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-(2)2, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: SRI P.SHYAMARAJU IV MAIN, NO.343, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-80. ... RESPONDENT (MR. V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06/01/2012 2 PASSED IN ITA NO.440/BANG/2010 AND ITA.504/BANG/2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED THEREIN. II. SET ASIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 06/01/2012 PASSED BY ITAT, B BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.440/BANG/2010 AND ITA.504/BANG/2010 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for revenue. Mr.V.Chandrashekar, 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 2004-05. appeal was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2012 on following substantial questions of law: 3 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, tribunal was justified in annulling assessments even when said assessments were done in accordance with provisions Section 158-BC r.w.s 143(3) of I.T.Act? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, tribunal was justified on facts and law to annulling block assessment order passed by assessing authority even rulings of this Hon ble High Court in ITA NO.6005 of 2010 and 6006 of 2010 has not reached finality as SLP preferred against said order being SLP No.17132- 17133/2011 are pending before Supreme Court? 2(A). Whether, appellate order passed by tribunal annulling assessment concluded in respondent assessee s case on account of issuance of joint- warrant is sustainable in terms of subsequent Amendment involving 4 insertion of Sec.292CC in Income Tax Act by Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, tribunal was justified on facts and law to annulling block assessment order? 3. facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that Search was conducted in premises of Assessee on 01.03.2007 and Notice under Section 153A of Act was issued on 14.11.2007. assessee filed return of income under protest on 14.12.2008. Assessing Officer called various details through various communications. assessee challenged issue of Notice under Section 153A of Act before Assessing Officer on ground that proceedings initiated under Section 153A of Act are illegal as Search was illegal and prayed for dismissal of proceedings. Assessing Officer, however, did not find any merit in 5 submissions made by assessee and thereafter, framed Assessment vide Order dated 31.12.2008 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of Act and total income of assessee was assessed at Rs.18,98,47,383/-. assessee thereupon, approached Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by filing appeal. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by Order dated 11.02.2010 dismissed appeal preferred by assessee. assessee thereupon approached Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal , for short). Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2012 inter alia by placing reliance on decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Vandana Verma , (2011) 330 ITR 533 (ALL) held that Warrant of Authorization was issued jointly, however, assessment has been made in individual capacity. Tribunal, therefore, held that Assessment framed under Section 153A of Act is not 6 maintainable. Accordingly, order of assessment under Section 153A of Act was annulled and appeal preferred by assessee was allowed. Being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for revenue invited attention of this Court to provisions of Section 292CC of Act and submitted that view taken by Tribunal is erroneous and reliance placed by Tribunal on decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Smt. Vandana Verma (supra) is misconceived as Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Devesh Singh , 76 DTR 0403 (FB) has remanded matter after taking note of amendment in light of provisions contained in Section 292CC of Act. It is also submitted that decision of this Court in ITA No.5005/2012 dated 27.11.2019 does not apply to fact situation of case as in aforesaid case, 7 revenue has failed to produce Warrant of Authorization. 5. On other hand, learned counsel for assessee while inviting attention of Court to paragraph No.12 of Order passed by Tribunal submitted that in fact discrepancy has crept in Order of Tribunal inasmuch as assessee had never produced Warrant of Authorization before Tribunal but had produced copy of Panchanama, which has been described as Warrant of Authorization. It is further submitted that assesse is not in possession of Warrant of Authorisation and is not in position to produce same. However, Tribunal has proceeded on incorrect factual premise. 6. We have considered submissions made on both sides and have perused records. 7. relevant portion of order passed by Tribunal reads as under:- 8 12. We have considered submissions of both parties and carefully gone through material available on record. In present case, it is noticed from record that warrant of authorization dated 02.02.2007 was in joint names of Divyashree Developers (P) Ltd., Chatur Realtors (P) Ltd., P. Shyamaraju, Umesh S. Raju, Bhaskar Raju and Smt. Arathi Raju. copy of said document i.e., warrant of authorization dated 02.02.2007 is available at page No.3 of assessee s paperbook, therefore there is no doubt to this fact that warrant of authorization was in joint names, but assessment has been framed in individual name of assessee . 8. fact whether assessee had produced Warrant of Authorization or Panchanama can only be ascertained by Tribunal. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of case, we deem it appropriate to quash Order dated 06.01.2012 passed by Tribunal and to remit matter to Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. 9 9. Needless to state that all contentions of both parties are kept open on merits of matter. 10. In view of fact that we have remitted matter to Tribunal, it is not necessary for us to answer substantial questions of law framed in this appeal. 11. Tribunal shall make endeavor to dispose of appeal within period of six months from date of receipt of copy of this order. In result, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE dn/- CT-HR Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-(2)2, Bangalore v. P.Shyamaraju
Report Error