THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S IBIDEN SINGAPORE PTE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/437/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01031785202323 January 2024Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s C.Ramaiah Reddy was not disputed by the Revenue. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the perversity or the mandatory nature of Section 143(2) notice, as the matter was decided based on the binding precedent cited by the assessee and not disputed by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging a common order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru Bench. The ITAT had quashed re-assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The appeals are filed against M/s. Ibiden Singapore Pte Ltd, India Branch Office. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of these re-assessment orders, specifically concerning the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in quashing re-assessment orders passed by the assessing officer for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that said orders are passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act, ignoring that even if same is not issued, the proceeding cannot be held as invalid as issuance of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory? (Question of law turning on Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in quashing re-assessment orders passed by the assessing officer for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that said orders are passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act, ignoring that even if same is not issued, re-assessment orders cannot be held as invalid as assessee has contested on merits and not objected to same at earlier stage? (Question of law turning on Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s C.Ramaiah Reddy, holding the question of law in the assessee’s favour. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3337-DB ITA No. 441 of 2023 C/W ITA No. 437 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2023 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2023

IN ITA NO.441 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1 M/S. IBIDEN SINGAPORE PTE LTD INDIA BRANCH OFFICE NO.8, GROUND FLOOR NITESH TIME SQUARE M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 PAN:AABCI 8919E …RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3337-DB ITA No. 441 of 2023 C/W ITA No. 437 of 2023

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO.782/BANG/2022 DATED 06.12.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(2), BENGALURU AND ETC. IN ITA NO.437 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), 4TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL) AND:

M/S. IBIDEN SINGAPORE PTE LTD INDIA BRANCH OFFICE NO.8, GROUND FLOOR NITESH TIME SQUARE M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 PAN:AABCI 8919E …RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3337-DB ITA No. 441 of 2023 C/W ITA No. 437 of 2023

PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(IT)A NO.783/BANG/2022 DATED 06.12.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(2), BENGALURU AND ETC.

THESE ITAs, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These appeals by the Revenue challenging the common order dated 06.12.2022 in ITAs No.782 & 783/Bang/2022 passed by the ITAT1, "C" Bench, Bangalore, have been admitted to consider following question 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 in quashing re-assessment orders passed by assessing officer for A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that said orders are passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act ignoring that even if same is not issued, the proceeding cannot be held as invalid as issuance of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in quashing re-assessment orders passed by assessing

1 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3337-DB ITA No. 441 of 2023 C/W ITA No. 437 of 2023

officer for A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on the ground that said orders are passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act ignoring that even if same is not issued, re-assessment orders cannot be held as invalid as assesse has contested the on merits and not objected to same at earlier stage?”

2.

Heard Shri. M. Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee.

3.

At the outset, Smt.Manasa Ananthan submits that issue involved in these appeals is covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s C.Ramaiah Reddy2 holding the question of law in assessee’s favour.

4.

The said submission is not disputed by Shri Dilip, in his usual fairness.

2 ITA No.192/2012 DD 24.06.2020

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3337-DB ITA No. 441 of 2023 C/W ITA No. 437 of 2023

5.

In view of the above, the following: ORDER

(i) Appeals are dismissed; and (ii) The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

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 →