DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPEMNT CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1514/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 January 2019AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the name of the assessee between the assessment order, the CIT(A) order, and previous Tribunal orders. To address this, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for rectification of the name in the appellate order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee, a state industrial investment corporation, had its income determined after certain additions by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted some of these additions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was a discrepancy in the assessee's name, which led to the restoration of the case to the CIT(A) for correction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 40A(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU

For Appellant: Shri M.Vijay Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
For Respondent: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniam, CA
Hearing: 01/01/2019Pronounced: 02/01/2019

O R D E R

Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The Revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru, in 4(1)(1)/CIT(A)-4/14-15 dated 28/02/2017.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in business of financing of industrial units, construction and owning of commercial buildings on lease/joint venture and undertaking infrastructure projects on behalf of Government of Karnataka and filed Return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 26/09/2012 with loss of Rs.29,62,55,691/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] was issued calling for various information and also notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed details and the AO has dealt on the issues on contribution to Ekadanta Geleyara Balaga – Employees Association and SC/ST Employees Association and disallowance under the provisions of section 14A of the Act and also on the submissions made by Page 3 of 5 the assessee in respect of provision for leave encashment and prior period expenditure and finally made addition u/s 40A(9) contribution, disallowance u/s 14A and prior period expenditure to the returned income and determined the loss of Rs.124,799,594/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31/10/2014.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) considering grounds of appeal

, the submissions and judicial decisions and the provisions of law, has partly allowed the appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A) and the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the AO. Per contra, the ld. AR submitted that the matter was dealt by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 reported in (2017) 54 ITR (Trib) 425 (ITAT, Bang) and furnished copy and prayed for dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.

6. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. Prima facie, the revenue has filed the appeal on the two additions deleted by the CIT(A). Whereas ld. AR relied on Page 4 of 5 the order of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2010- 11 (supra). When we perused the order of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal for assessment 2008-00 and 2010-11 (supra), we found that the order was passed in the name of Karnataka State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra). When a query was raised to the ld. AR the reasons for difference in the name, ld. AR submitted that the company name has been changed long back.

7.

We, on perusal of the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31/10/2014 found that the assessment was made in the name of M/s.Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. whereas on appeal; the CIT(A) has passed the appellate order in the name of M/s Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd., we could not understand the reason why the order was passed in the name referred in the CIT(A)’s appellate order. The ld. AR’s explained that there is a mistake and prayed for an opportunity before the CIT(A) to rectify the order in the appellate proceedings in respect of Name of the appellant. We observed there is a difference in the name on comparison of name of the appellant in assessment years 2008-09 and 2010- 11 and the present assessment year being assessment year Page 5 of 5 2012-13. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and opportunity, as prayed by the ld. AR, we restore this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for limited purpose for change in the name of Appellant in the appellate order and assessee shall co- operate in submitting the information at earliest and allow the grounds of appeal of Revenue for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd January, 2019.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →