PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) vs. M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.1091 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (LTU)

J.S.S. TOWERS, 100 FT. RING ROAD

BANASHANKARI III STAGE

BANGALORE-560085. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLR-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA

BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.12, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560093 PAN: AAACI 44032. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. PERCY PARDIWALLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MS. MANASA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1028/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO:

2 (i) FORMULATE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DECIDING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS. (ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE ITAT 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. (iii) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIYT. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Percy Pardiwalla, learned Senior counsel along with Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for the assessee. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee, on 08.01.2021, had pointed out that the Assessing Officer had failed to implement the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), within the prescribed time limit that is 31.03.2015. Therefore, the question involved in this appeal has been rendered academic. 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue stated that the Assessing Officer has

3 not passed any order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax within the prescribed time limit. However, it is further submitted that merely because the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, same would not debar this Court from examining the issue involved in this appeal. 3. However, in our opinion, since the Assessing Officer has failed to pass the order giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the questions of law involved in this appeal have been rendered academic. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the same. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV