Appellant challenged the ITAT's order dismissing the cross objection on grounds of mistake apparent from record regarding rectification under Section 154. Court held substantial question of law did not arise due to assessee's conduct and dismissed appeal.
Appeal dismissed for wrong submission. No costs.
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.
ITA No. 776 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANNAMALI S,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. DILIP M, STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED01/06/2018 PASSED IN C.O.NO.37/BANG/2018 IN ITA NO.702/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012. PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
ITA No. 776 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee, challenging the order dated 01.06.2018 in ITA No. 702/Bang/2018 passed by
ITAT1 , Bengaluru has been admitted to consider the following question of law:
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in law not holding that the rectification made was beyond the scope of Section154 of the Act, and ought to have setaside the order under Section-154 of the Act as bad in law, and without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case?"
2. Heard Shri. Annamalai, learned Advocate for
the Assessee and Shri. M.Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for
the Revenue.
under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 19612 , a
1 Income Tax Appellant Tribunal
2 'the Act' for short
ITA No. 776 of 2018
recalling order under Section 154 of the Act was passed by AO3 on 27.10.2015, adding tax on the following four heads:
| Add | Write off of hotel equipments" being capital expenditure |
3,00,000 |
|---|---|---|
| Add | Wrong claim of depreciation 50% instead of 15% i.e., on WDV |
3,70,378 |
| Add | Lease rent | 8,90,135 |
| Add | STT paid and STT processing charges to be added back as not expended for the purpose of Business |
2,83,091 |
2. “The learned CIT(A) ought to have annulled/cancelled the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case; and
3 Assessing Officer
4 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
ITA No. 776 of 2018
3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in confirming the rectification order in respect of depreciation, as there was no mistake apparent from record, on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
that the assessee did not press the cross objection and accordingly, it was dismissed.
that since the order passed under Section 154 of the Act was without any valid reason and goes to root of the matter, the ITAT erred in rejecting ground No.2 raised before it.
the same.
5 [2013] 37 taxmann.com 162 (SC)
ITA No. 776 of 2018
and perused the records.
order passed by the CIT(A), Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee filed its cross objection and did not press the same and it has been dismissed. Therefore, the Authority in Jhabua Power Ltd . is not applicable to the facts of the case.
pressing the appeal before ITAT, no question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for wrong submission.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal was justified in not holding that a rectification made under Section 154 of the Act was beyond its scope and ought to have been set aside as bad in law?
Whether a substantial question of law can be raised at any stage when the assessee failed to press the cross objection before the Tribunal?
Whether the appeal should be allowed considering the assessee's conduct in not pressing the cross objection before the Tribunal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-III Vs. Jhabua Power LtdReferred¶50
[2013] 37 taxmann.com 162 (SC)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
PALGHAT RAMANATHAN SESHADRI TAPOVANA
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2)(1)
P.S.DINESH KUMAR
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
