Late.Sri.A.N.Rangaswamy Rep. by his L/R Sri.A.R.Sharath V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle \\u2013 1(2)

ITA/367/2009

AI Insights

The case involves appeals filed by the legal representative of the late Sri A.N. Rangaswamy against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which partly allowed appeals from both the assessee and the revenue. The primary contention was the validity of the search and seizure that led to the assessment orders, which the Tribunal initially did not address due to a perceived lack of jurisdiction. However, following a relevant judgment by the High Court in the case of Sri.C.R.Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT, which clarified the Tribunal's jurisdiction to examine the validity of search and seizure, the matter was remanded for re-evaluation on this and other merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822175 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sri.C.R.Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT, reported in 339 ITR 210
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR; M LAVA
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Jurisdiction; Remand; Search and seizure; Validity
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA NOs.367-377 OF 2009 BETWEEN; Late.Sri.A.N.Rangaswamy Rep. by his L/R Sri.A.R.Sharath No.64, Hospital Road Balepet Road Cross Bangalore – 560 053 ...APPELLANT (By Sri.A.Shankar & M.Lava, Advocates) AND: The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle – 1(2) C.R.Building, Queens Road Bangalore – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate) -0-0-0-0-0- 2 These appeals are filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 25.02.2009 passed in ITA No.483 to 488/BNG/2008, for the Assessment Year 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003- 04, praying to 1) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and 2) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in ITA No. 483 to 488/BNG/2008, dated 25.02.2009 and Appeal Nos. 715/716/717/718/719/BNG/2008 in the interest of justice and equity. These appeals coming on for Hearing this day, N.KUMAR, J. delivered the following:- JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal by a common order partly allowed both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue. 2. In these appeals, the assessee has raised several grounds assailing the order passed by the Tribunal both on the grounds of maintainability as well as on merits. The primary ground canvassed by the assessee is the search and seizure which resulted in the assessment 3 orders were not valid in law. However the Tribunal did not go into the validity of the search and seizure on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. Therefore it is contended the said views of the Tribunal is erroneous in view of judgment passed by this court in the case of Sri.C.R.Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT, reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. In fact, the Tribunal was following the judgment referred by a full bench of the Tribunal which had held that the said question cannot be gone into by the Tribunal. Now that the said finding has been reversed by this court and it is held that in the appeal the Tribunal has the power to go into the question of validity of search and seizure, if the appellant could succeed on that point, going into the merits of the case would not arise. In view of the judgment of this court in Sri.C.R.Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal has to be set aside as erroneous and the matter has to be now remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. In 4 these appeals the merits are also challenged, by raising several grounds. We deem it proper to send back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is pointed out that assessee died on 26.07.2003. It is the legal representative of the assessee who has preferred these appeals. In the appeal preferred by the Revenue they have not brought the legal representative of the deceased on record. The Revenue appeal was partly allowed on 25.02.2009 against the dead person. In the circumstances as we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, the Revenue is at liberty to take fresh steps to bring the LRs of the deceased on record. Hence we pass the following order:- The appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the entire matter is sent back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The question of law which is already covered by Sri.C.R.Ramaiah Reddy Vs. ACIT case that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with 5 the validity of the search and seizure is answered in favour of the Assessee. All contentions on merit are kept open to be agitated by the parties before the Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/- JUDGE. Bsv "