M/S. SASKEN COMMUNICATION vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/268/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01024146201302 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law regarding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) should be answered in favor of the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision. The court also granted liberty to the revenue to file a review petition based on the outcome of a pending review before the Supreme Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ITAT order upholding the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act. The assessee argued that a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case was in their favor. The revenue did not dispute this contention.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act was justified in light of a Supreme Court judgment. The court also considered the implications of a pending review petition before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB ITA No. 268 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.268 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

M/S. SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD., #139/25, DOMLUR RING ROAD BENGALURU-560071. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.SHARATH, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 2(1), BENGALURU …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THE ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/03/2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.898/BANG/2012, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB ITA No. 268 of 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

This appeal is by the Assessee challenging the order dated 22.3.2013 in ITA.No.898/B/2012.

2.

The appeal is filed raising the question of law for consideration, which reads as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in law in upholding the action of the Learned Respondent in levying interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act?"

3.

Sri. S.Sharath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the above stated question of law is answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (P.) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC) and the said question is answered in favour of the Assessee. In view of the same, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal.

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB ITA No. 268 of 2013

4.

Learned counsel Sri. Ravi Raj.Y.V., along with learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., for the respondent-Revenue is not in a position to dispute the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.

5.

Taking note of the above, in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (P.) LTD. (supra), we answer the above question of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

6.

Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the Revenue has preferred Review Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.Nos.1422-1497/2021 praying to review the order passed in the case of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (P.) LTD. (supra) and prays for liberty to file review in case the Revenue succeeds before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would place reliance on the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. GRACEMAC

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB ITA No. 268 of 2013

CORPORATION reported in (2023) 456 ITR 135 (SC) to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there must be an end to litigation otherwise, the rights of persons would be in an endless confusion and fluidity and justice would suffer.

7.

Learned counsel for the Revenue is seeking liberty to file review petition depending upon the outcome of the review pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, apparently because of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 in GRACEMAC CORPORATION case (supra).

8.

We have gone through the above decision and deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the respondent- Revenue to file review petition based on the outcome of the review pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is for the respondent-Revenue to make out a case for review.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB ITA No. 268 of 2013

Accordingly, appeal is allowed; question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue and the order dated 22.3.2013 in ITA.No.898/B/2012 is quashed to the above extent.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →