Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2601 2009 SLD 2601 (2009) 314 ITR 284
Karnataka High Court
I.T. APPEAL Nos. 1138 AND 1139 OF 2008 AND MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL Nos. 1408 AND 1409 OF 2009 June 10, 2009
V. GOPALA GOWDA AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Subbanna Gowramma Family Trust

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

K.R. Prasad for the Appellant. M.V. Seshachala for the Respondent. JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of hearing of interlocutory application. 2. Accepting the reasons stated in Miscellaneous Civil Application Nos. 1408 of 2009 and 1409 of 2009 filed in both these appeals delay of 526 days in filing the appeals in condoned. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Civil Applications Nos. 1408 and 1409 of 2009 are allowed. 3. These two appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 1685/BNG/1988 and Income-tax Appeal No. 1773/Bang/1988 dated March 12, 2007, framing the following question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have held that the provisions of section 161 (1A) were inapplicable while giving effect to the earlier order dated November 8, 2006, of the High Court of Karnataka ?" 4. In support of the same urged the grounds and requested this court to answer the said question of law in favour of the assessee by allowing these two appeals. 5. The ground of attack of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is that it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal while giving effect to the order passed under section 260(1) to give due regard to the observations of the High Court. It cannot be mechanically followed. 6. Another ground of attack of the impugned order is that the Tribunal should have examined the fact situation and could have ascertained as to whether the provisions of section 161(1A) of the Act were applicable or not to the fact situation. In view of the fact that the appellant had no income from business at all and the only income it had was under the head "House property" arising from a single property giving rise to rent and, therefore, the provisions of section 161(1A) of the Act is not applicable. Further, he has contended that while answering the points referred for consideration this court in ITRC Nos. 7 and 8 of 2001 has answered the following questions of law framed on the reference referred by the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. "1.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492