M/S. SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

ITA/200001/2017

AI Insights

M/s. Shetty Constructions filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had rejected their Miscellaneous Application. The original dispute arose from an assessment order for the year 2007-08, which was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal due to the non-furnishing of the Departmental Valuation Officer's report to the assessee, a violation of the principles of natural justice. After the remand, a new assessment was made, which the assessee appealed against, and this appeal is currently pending. The High Court dismissed the present appeal as infructuous, stating that the substantial questions of law raised were not applicable as the assessment process had been completed following the Tribunal's directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726907 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMEET DESHPANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2007-08; Departmental Valuation Officer; Income Tax; Miscellaneous Application; Natural Justice; Remand; Valuation report
• Section: 260A; 142A

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS ITA No.200001/2017 Between: M/s. Shetty Constructions, No.G-1, Siddharth Plaza, Shetty Enclave, Aland Road, Gulbarga-585 101, Represented by its Partner, Sri Girijashankar Shetty, Aged 57 Years, Son of Sangappa Shetty. … Appellant (By Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate) And: The Deputy Commissioner, Of Income-Tax, Circle No.1, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam road, Gulbarga-585 105. … Respondent (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) Date of order: 22.03.2018 ITA No.200001/2017 M/s. Shetty Constructions Vs the Deputy Commissioner 2 This Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated, allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.08.2016 bearing Mis. Petition No.37/Bang/2014 arising out of I.T.A.No.1166/Bang/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. This appeal coming on for Admission this day, VINEET KOTHARI J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T Mrs. Pratibha R., Advocate for Appellant-Assessee Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent- Revenue 1. The Assessee M/s. Shetty Constructions has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore, Bench-‘A’ rejecting the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner- Assessee on 11.08.2016. 2. The said Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Assessee against the order dated 10.03.2014, passed by the same Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2007-08, remitting the case back to the Assessing Authority Date of order: 22.03.2018 ITA No.200001/2017 M/s. Shetty Constructions Vs the Deputy Commissioner 3 with the following observations made in Paragraph No.13 of the said order is quoted for ready reference :- “We are of the view that this appeal can be disposed on the short ground that the report of the DVO has not been furnished to the assessee. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remand the assessment for a de novo consideration by the Assessing Officer. The AO will furnish a copy of the DVO’s report to the assessee and call for his objection. Thereafter, the AO will decide the issue in accordance with law, after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to raise all objections regarding the validity of the reference u/s 142A of the Act. All issues are left open.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant- Assessee Mrs. Pratibha R., has urged before this Court that after the said remand was made by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Assessing Authority has again passed a fresh assessment order and aggrieved by that, the Assessee has also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, which is pending consideration. 4. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-Department. Date of order: 22.03.2018 ITA No.200001/2017 M/s. Shetty Constructions Vs the Deputy Commissioner 4 5. By the order dated 10.03.2014, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had only remanded the case back for a de novo reconsideration on the ground that the Valuation Report furnished by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) was not furnished to the Assessee under Section 142 (A) of the Act and therefore in compliance of the principles of natural justice, the said report of DVO deserves to be given to the petitioner- Assessee and thereafter the fresh assessment proceedings should be taken by the Assessing Authority. Against the said remand order, no apparent error could have been pointed out by the Assessee, still a Miscellaneous Application came to be filed by the Assessee which was rejected by the learned Tribunal on 11.08.2016. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Act has been filed in this Court raising the purported substantial question of law in the matter. 6. The learned counsel for the Assessee also urged before this Court that the Tribunal itself could have examined the matter in detail with regard to the books of accounts in order to say whether books of accounts are Date of order: 22.03.2018 ITA No.200001/2017 M/s. Shetty Constructions Vs the Deputy Commissioner 5 reliable or not and whether on the basis of the Valuation Report, the impugned additions in the declared income could be made or not. 7. We are not impressed with these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant- Assessee. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 8. Upon the remand made by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the second round of assessment proceeding has already been undertaken, presumably after supplying a copy of the Valuation Report as directed by the learned Tribunal and the learned counsel for the appellant- Assessee has submitted before this Court that the Assessing Authority has already passed another assessment order upon such remand, against which the first appeal filed by the Assessee is pending before the learned Commercial Income Tax (Appeals). Date of order: 22.03.2018 ITA No.200001/2017 M/s. Shetty Constructions Vs the Deputy Commissioner 6 9. The present appeal before this Court is therefore rendered infructuous in the present facts and circumstances and therefore the so called questions formulated for our consideration cannot be said to be the substantial question of law at all. 10. The said Appeal is therefore rendered infructuous and therefore the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE RSP "