THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. F MULLERS CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1009/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01034469200807 July 2014Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal. The reasoning was based on the procedural history: a prior appeal filed by the assessee challenging the Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been set aside by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the revenue's appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the entire order which formed the subject matter of the present proceedings was one passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue lacked merit, and the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal was upheld. The operative direction was to dismiss the revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2001-02. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, exercising powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued directions to the assessing authority for a proper assessment. The assessing authority then passed an assessment order. The assessee appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), who confirmed it. Subsequently, the revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which dismissed the revenue's appeal. The present appeal is filed by the revenue against the ITAT's dismissal order. The High Court notes that a prior appeal by the assessee challenging the Section 263 order was set aside by the Tribunal and subsequently dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the order under challenge is considered to be without jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the order that set aside the Commissioner's direction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the entire order under challenge was without jurisdiction, as a prior appeal by the assessee against the Commissioner's Section 263 order had been set aside by the Tribunal and subsequently dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the proceedings before the ITAT were vitiated. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue in this appeal. However, the revenue is in appeal against the ITAT's order dismissing its appeal against the ITAT's earlier order that set aside the Commissioner's Section 263 direction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2014

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

ITA No.1009 OF 2008

BETWEEN;

1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax, C.R.Building, Attavar, Mangalore.

2.The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore.

...APPELLANTS

(By Sri.E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate)

AND:

F. Mullers Charitable Institutions, No.17/21-1488/3, Kamkanady, Mangalore.

...RESPONDENT

(By Sri.S. Parthasarathi, Advocate)

-0-0-0-0-0-

This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 20.6.2008 Annexure-A passed in ITA.No.1169/BNG/2007 for the Assessment

2 Year 2001-02, praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.1169/BNG/2007 dated 20.6.2008 and confirm the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, N. KUMAR, J. delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Commissioner of Income Tax, exercising his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had issued certain directions to the assessing authority to make proper assessment. Accordingly, the assessing authority passed assessment order. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) who confirmed the said order. Against that order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal. Against the order of dismissal, the revenue is in appeal.

2.

It is not in dispute that challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 263, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The

3 Tribunal set aside the said order. Against that order, the revenue had preferred an appeal before this Court which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the entire order which is the subject-matter of these proceedings is one without jurisdiction and accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal. The Tribunal was justified in setting the order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

*alb/-.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →