M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

ITA/656/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01049499201331 January 2014Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law in the present appeal was indeed covered by its own prior judgment in ITA No.105/2009. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally disposes of the SLP arising from the High Court's judgment in ITA No.105/2009. The Assessing Officer was to pass orders in conformity with the Supreme Court's decision. However, the order did not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting any tax due from the assessee if not already collected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s. Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.78/Bang/2008. The assessee sought to set aside the ITAT's order and direct the allowance of a deduction of Rs.46,52,780/- in its income computation. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same court in ITA No.105/2009, also involving the assessee. This prior judgment had been appealed to the Supreme Court, which had granted leave and expedited the hearing, though it refused a stay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is covered by the High Court's prior judgment in ITA No.105/2009 (M/s.Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd. V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), and if so, what is the implication for the present appeal? (Question of law, Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, fairly stated that the substantial question of law was covered by the High Court's judgment in ITA No.105/2009. The assessee further submitted that this judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court and prayed for the present appeal to be disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders only after the Supreme Court's decision on the Special Leave Petition (SLP). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 260(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A. No.656/2013

BETWEEN :

M/s.Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd., The Falcon House, No.1 Main, Guard Cross Road, Bangalore – 560 001. …APPELLANT

(By Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, Adv.)

AND :

The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (OSD), Central Range, Bangalore. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv. . . . .

This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in I.T.A. No.78/Bang/2008 dated 11.10.2013 in Annexure `D’ and direct the allowance of Rs.46,52,780/- as a deduction in the computation of the Income.

- 2 -

This I.T.A. coming on for admission, this day, Dilip B.Bhosale, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Sri. Ashok A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 17-11-2009 passed by this court in ITA No.105/2009 (M/s.Prestige Estates Projects (P) Ltd. V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax). He further submits that the said judgment dated 17-11-2009 has been carried by the assessee to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.7721/2010. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 12-3-2012 has granted leave and expedited hearing of the appeal. However, stay has been refused. In the circumstances, he prayed for disposing of this appeal with direction to the Assessing Officer to pass

- 3 -

consequential order only after disposal of the SLP (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court.

It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In view of the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP arising from the judgment of this Court in ITA No.105/2009. It is needless to mention that the Assessing Officer shall pass consequential orders, after disposal of the SLP in the Supreme Court, in conformity with the order that will be passed by the Supreme Court. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from

- 4 -

collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected.

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →