THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S GMR ENERGY LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/358/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01032738202207 November 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found it premature to consider the appeal as it might prejudge the issue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, allowing both parties to present their contentions before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order that had remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not recorded any categorical finding regarding incriminating material seized during search proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal when the matter has been remanded by the ITAT to the lower appellate authority without a final decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 ITA No. 358 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.358 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE C.R.BUILDING QUEEN'S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) C.R.BUILDING QUEEN'S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

M/s GMR ENERGY LTD 25/1, SKIP HOUSE MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU-560 025. PAN: AAACT8420A …RESPONDENT

(SHRI BALRAM RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09/09/2020 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1918/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.,

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

2 ITA No. 358 of 2022

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging order dated 09th September, 2020 in ITA No.1918/Bang/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri Balram Rao, learned advocate for the respondent. 3. In impugned order, ITAT1 has noted that no categorical finding is recorded by the CIT(A)2 with regard to any incriminating material that was seized during search proceedings and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). In our opinion, it would be premature to consider this appeal as we may be prejudging the issue. In the circumstance, this appeal is dismissed reserving liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to urge all contentions before the CIT(A).

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

3 ITA No. 358 of 2022

Since, the matter has been remanded to the CIT(A), questions of law require no answer. Accordingly, they are not answered. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

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 →