SHREE KALMESWAR CO-OPERATIVE V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

ITA/100059/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Kalmeshwar Co-operative Credit Society, which appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was based on the grounds that similar issues had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in a different case (CIT Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.). The High Court noted that the issue was still pending before the Supreme Court and thus reserved the right for the respondents to revive the appeal based on the Supreme Court's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693536 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H R KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2010-11; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Miscellaneous Application
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA AND THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY I.T.A.No.100059/2016 BETWEEN: SHREE KALMESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, NO.396/4, 5TH MAIN ROAD, L.B.SHASTRI NAGAR, KANGRALI (BK), TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI, PAN: AAJS2317N, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.ANIL S/O KALLAPPA KADOLKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS), DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) : 2 : THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIN OF LAW, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.266/PNJ/2013 DATED 22.08.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AGAISNT THAT THE APPELLANT FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) NO.33/PAN/2014 THAT ALSO CAME TO BE DISMISSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI. ORDER DATED 22.07.2016 THE COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, GOA ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURES-A AND A1 RESPECTIVELY TO THIS APPEAL THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant/assessee is before this Court assailing the orders dated 22.08.2014 passed by the appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2010-11 and order dated 22.07.2016, which are impugned at Annexues-A and A1 respectively. : 3 : 2. Though several contentions have been urged in this appeal and the learned counsel for the parties have also adverted to the same, at the time of hearing an order dated 05.01.2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in ITA No.100178/2015 is brought to our notice. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has referred to an earlier order dated 21.09.2015 in ITA No.100080/2014 (CIT Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co- operate Credit Society Ltd.) wherein it had held the very same issue in favour of the assessee. It is further noticed that, insofar as the said issue, the Revenue has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions/Appeals filed in respect of some cases are pending consideration. In that light, the Division Bench of this Court had clarified that the view to be taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would bind the parties notwithstanding the disposal of the appeal by this Court. The said observation was made in ITA : 4 : No.100178/2015 dated 05.01.2016, since the said appeal was by the Revenue. 3. In the instant facts, though the judgment passed by the Division Bench would apply to the present facts and the benefit of the order is to be given to the appellant herein, keeping in view the fact that the issue in any event is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents herein will have to be reserved the liberty to revive this appeal for consideration, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes a different view and in that circumstance, this appeal is required to be considered based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at that point in time. 4. Therefore, keeping the above aspects in view and taking note of the judgment passed in ITA No.100080/2014, the orders impugned at Annexures-A and A1 are set aside. The question for consideration as raised herein, which was earlier considered in the said : 5 : appeal is answered in favour of the appellant. Liberty is however reserved to the respondents to seek revival of the appeal, in the circumstance, as stated supra. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MBS/- "