DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2012 – 13 The DCIT, Circle – 1, Vs M/s Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Bangalore No. 6, Jal Bhavan, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM layout, Bangalore – 29. PAN AAATK5837F (Appellant) (Respondent) & C. O. No. 37/B/2017 in ITA No. 1212/B/2016 Assessment Year 2012 – 13 M/s Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, Vs The DCIT, Circle – 1, No. 6, Jal Bhavan, Bangalore 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM layout, Bangalore – 29. PAN AAATK5837F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhusudhan, C. A. Revenue by Ms Neera Malhotra, CIT DR Date of hearing 01/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/05/2017 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, AM.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the C.O. is filed by the assessee and these are directed against the order dated 31.03.2016 for A. Y. 2012 – 13 passed by CIT (A), LTU, Bangalore.

ITA No. 1212/B/2016 & CO No. 37/B/2017 2

by the revenue is as under:- “Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is right in holding that the provisions of section 2. (15) are not applicable in the assessee’s case.”

by the assessee are in support of the order of CIT (A).

4. Learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order and learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). He also submitted that learned CIT (A) has followed the tribunal order in assessee’s own case for A. Y.

2011 – 12 in dated 04.09.2015, copy available on pages 3 to 27 of the paper book. At this juncture, a query was raised by the bench asking the learned DR of the revenue to point out any difference in facts in the present year and in A. Y. 2011 – 12. In reply, learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. Since, learned CIT (A) has followed the tribunal order in assessee’s own case for A. Y. 2011 – 12 and in spite of query, the learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts, we find no reason to take a contrary view. Hence, by respectfully following the tribunal order in assessee’s own case in A. Y. 2011 -12, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A). Regarding C.O. of the assessee, we hold that since, it is merely in support of the order of CIT (A) and we are ITA No. 1212/B/2016 & CO No. 37/B/2017 3 upholding his order, the C. O. does not survive and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)