The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Tribunal was correct in answering the first two questions of law in favor of the assessee, rendering the third question academic.
Appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s disposed of accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
I.T.A. NO.174/2021
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BRIGADE SOUTH PARADE, NO.10, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. PAN: AACCC452A
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.901/BANG/2019 AND ITA NO. 1010/BAN/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.900/BANG/2019 and ITA No.1010/BANG/2019 relating to the Assessment Year 2009-2010 raising the following substantial questions of law:
(1) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as the Tribunal has held that assessing authority has not followed the due procedure laid down in section 144C of the Act in passing assessment order without appreciating that the assessing authority has passed order in pursuance to remand order passed by Tribunal and it is order giving effect passed under section 143(3) & 144C read with section 254 of the Act and as such passing of draft assessment order
3
does not arise as per section 144C and 254 of the Act?”
(2) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in quashing the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by assessing authority on the ground that this is in violation of the mandate of section 144C of the Act without appreciating that order passed by the assessing authority in question is not the order in first instance?”
(3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing Revenue’s appeal by holding that assessment order itself has been quashed and as such order passed under section 263 of the Act does not arise?”
in the assessee’s own case, the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Substantial question of law No.3 does not arise for consideration since, the same
4
would render academic in view of the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 having been answered in favour of the assessee.
In the result, appeal stands dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, all the
pending I.A.s are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BVK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order is perverse for holding that the assessing authority failed to follow section 144C procedures when passing an order under section 143(3) read with section 144C and section
Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in quashing the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 on the ground that it violated the mandate of section 144C, despite it not being the order in the first instan
Whether the question of invoking section 263 arises when the assessment order itself has been quashed by the Tribunal.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
M/S. Cisco Systems Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd.
S. Sujatha
Ravi V. Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
