THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. DR N THIPPANNA SHETTY

ITA/1117/2006

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Inv.), Circle 1(1) Hubli against Dr. N. Thippanna Shetty Hosalli concerning the assessment year 1995-1996. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench-A, which had deleted certain additions made by the assessing officer. The main legal questions pertained to the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the admissibility of a retracted statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal, referencing a similar case where the substantial questions of law were decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 729166 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income \\u2013 Tax and another vs. Dr. N. Thippa Setty
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK S HEGDE
• Assessee Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year; HUF; Income Tax; Substantial questions of law
• Section: 132(4); 260-A

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA I.T.A. No. 1117/2006 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA. 2. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INV.), CIRCLE 1(1) HUBLI. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI : Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : Dr. N. THIPPANNA SHETTY HOSALLI, KUDLIGI TQ., BELLARY DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE FOR SRI A. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29-03-2006 2 PASSED IN ITA NO. 557/BANG/2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-1996, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH -A IN ITA NO.557/BANG/2003 DATED 29-03-2006 & CONFIRM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, DILIP B. BHOSALE J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PC : The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law- 1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were correct in deleting the additions on the ground of there being no existence of HUF when no material is there to show the nucleus of HUF? 2. Whether the statement made under Section 132(4) retracted after a long period can be used to accept the retraction when there being any corroborative evidence to establish the existence of HUF? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in accepting the finding of the appellants to the effect that in similar matters for the earlier years the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the 3 assessee without considering the fact of the revenue having preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble Court? 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent has placed an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.03.2011 in I.T.A. No. 1118/2006 and submitted that the similar questions of law were raised and considered by this Court and the appeal filed by the revenue came to be dismissed. He also invited our attention to the order passed by this Court while admitting the appeal dated 01.10.2007. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the substantial questions of law as framed in I.T.A. No.1118/2006. 3. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for the appellants could not and did not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent. In view thereof, we dispose of this appeal in terms of the order dated 31.03.2011 in I.T.A. No. 1118/2006. The relevant paragraph No.2 in the judgment reads thus : 4 “ 2. During the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that questions 2 and 3 are already answered against revenue and in favour of the Assessee in the matter of the Assessee’s case reported in [2010] 322 ITR 525 (Karn) Commissioner of Income – Tax and another vs. Dr. N. Thippa Setty. In view of the aforesaid judgment this appeal is dismissed answering the questions of law raised against the revenue.” Sd/ JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE hnm/- "