THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/188/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01033871202412 February 2025Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,G BASAVARAJA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground that the amount involved in the case falls below the minimum ceiling limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated September 17, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable. The Court reserved liberty to recall the order if the matter falls within the exceptions enumerated in the Circular or otherwise. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not maintainable, with a provision for recall.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, comprising the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated December 19, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru Bench, in ITA No. 755/Bang/2023. The assessment year in question is 2012-2013. The Revenue seeks to set aside the ITAT's order and the order of the Appellate Commissioner to the extent they were against the Revenue, and to confirm the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The dispute pertains to a deduction claimed by the assessee, M/s New Mangalore Port Authority, under Section 80IA of the Act.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that the deduction under Section 80IA is not allowable to the assessee? 2. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that the deduction claimed by the assessee was purely on an estimation basis, as stated by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A))? 3. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that the assessee failed to furnish the original audit report and Form 10CBB filed with the ITR, thus not satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 80IA read with Section 18BBB of the Act? 4. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that the assessee made a revised claim of deduction under Section 80IA for each Assessment Year by filing revised Form 10CBB, without providing suitable explanations, supporting documents, and evidence from the auditor during assessment and appellate proceedings? 5. Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the cross-objections without due consideration to the merits and erroneously stating that the AO did not raise the issue in the remand report? 6. Whether the ITAT erred in holding that a cross-objection cannot be filed by the assessee? 7. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that it is the last fact-finding authority and should have appreciated the facts on record brought to its notice by the Revenue? 8. Whether the ITAT erred in not appreciating that the Tribunal is bound to consider whether all conditions were satisfied even when the AO denied deduction for non-fulfilment of only one condition? The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred on multiple grounds related to the allowability of the Section 80IA deduction, the basis of the claim, and procedural deficiencies in furnishing required documents. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80IA,Section 18BBB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6311-DB ITA No. 188 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, PLOT NO.5, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403001.

2.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALURU, PRESENT ADDRESS, ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) AND TPS, MANGALURU, II FLOOR, C R BUILDING ANNEXE, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU - 575001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, FA AND CAO PANAMBUR, MANGALURU - 575010 PAN: AAALN0057A. …RESPONDENT

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED IN (IN ITA NO.755/BANG/2023, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6311-DB ITA No. 188 of 2024

NO.755/BANG/2023 DATED 19.12.2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TO THE EXTENT OF HAVING HELD AGAINST THE REVENUE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALURU; AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 19th December, 2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Bangalore in ITA No.755/Bang/2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.

2.

The Revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law in the appeal memo: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not considering the fact that the deduction u/s 80IA is not allowable to the assessee?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not considering the fact that it has been correctly mentioned by the AO and subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A) also that the

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6311-DB ITA No. 188 of 2024

deduction claimed by the assessee was purely on estimation basis?

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not considering the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the original audit report, Form 10CBB filed along with ITR and hence the assessee was not able to satisfy the conditions laid down in section 80IA r.w.s.18BBB of the Act?

4.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not considering the fact that assessee made a revised claim of deduction u/s 80IA for each AY by filing revised Form 10CBB and no suitable explanation, supporting documents and evidences were produced by the auditor during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceeding?

5.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT has erred in dismissing the cross- objections without giving due consideration to the merits of the case and erroneously stating that the Assessing Officer did not raise the issue in the remand report?

6.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in holding that the cross- objection cannot be filed by

7.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not considering that it is the last fact finding authority and should have appreciated the facts that are already available on record when brought to its notice by the revenue?

8.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT erred in not appreciating the fact that the Tribunal is bound to consider whether all conditions were satisfied even when the Assessing Officer denied deduction for non-fulfilment of only one condition?"

3.

Since the amount involved in the case falls below the minimum ceiling limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024, the Appeal is not maintainable and accordingly it is disposed off reserving liberty

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6311-DB ITA No. 188 of 2024

to recall the order in the event the matter falls in one of the exceptions enumerated in the Circular or otherwise.

Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →