COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI M J BALACHANDER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/223/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01020546201321 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the respondent assessee was assessed on a protective basis and that the department's appeals in related substantive assessments were dismissed. Consequently, the court directed the Assessing Officer to pass a rectification order.

What were the facts?

The assessee was assessed on a protective basis. The department had made similar additions on a substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Venkatesha Education Society, whose appeals were dismissed by the High Court. The respondent assessee, being assessed protectively, requested dismissal of the department's appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the department's appeal survives for consideration when the assessee was assessed on a protective basis and related substantive appeals were dismissed. The necessity of passing a rectification order by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 223/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.223 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) BANGALORE …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

SHRI. M.J. BALACHANDER 16, 1ST MAIN ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE …RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. S. SHARATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.94/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.99/BANG/2012 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.94/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.99/BANG/2012 DATED 21.12.2012, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL.

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

ITA No. 223/2013

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Shri Sharath, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has filed a memo of even date and it reads as follows: “It is submitted that the Respondent in the above Appeals were assessed on protective basis. The department made very same additions on substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Venkatesha Education Society, where the department was in Appeal before this Hon’ble Court in ITA Nos. 248/2013, 254/2013, 255/2013, 257/2013, 258/2013. The Assessee M/s. Venkatesha Education Society paid the disputed tax under vivad se vishwas scheme.

This Hon’ble Court dismissed the department appeals of the Assessee viz., M/s. Venkatesh Education Society by order dated 10.01.2023. Thus, the Respondent Assessee being assessed on protective basis, in view of FAQ No.35 to Circular No.9/2020 the department has to pass the rectification order deleting the protective additions.

In this regard the Respondent prays before this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the Appeals of the department. ”

2.

Shri Sharath submitted that other assessee, M/s. Venkatesha Education Society, has paid tax under vivad se vishwas scheme. Therefore, this appeal does not survive for consideration. He further submitted that this

- 3 -

ITA No. 223/2013

appeal arises out of protective assessment and the only thing remains to be done by the AO1 is to pass rectification order as per question No.25 in Circular No.9/2020. The same is not disputed by Shri E.I.Sanmathi.

3.

In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the AO to pass rectification order.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

1 Assessing Officer

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 →