Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
I.T.A.NO.235/2007
BETWEEN:
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(1), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.
…APPELLANTS
(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.)
AND:
M/s.Mascot Systems Ltd., (Now M/s.iGate Global Solutions Ltd.,) Flat No.158-162(P), EPIP, 2nd phase, Near Sap Lab, Whitefield, Bangalore.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.K.P.Kumar, Sr. Adv. for M/s.King & Partridge)
This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 11.08.2006 passed in
- 2 - ITA No.2291/BAN/2004 for the Assessment year 2001- 02 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, in ITA No.2291/BAN/2004 dated 11.08.2006 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Asst., Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J, delivered the following:-
PC:
This appeal by the revenue is against the order dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’, in ITA No.2291/Bang/2004, whereby, the appeal that was filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) dated 07.06.2004 was allowed. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, after reproducing the grounds of appeal, disposed of the appeal by the following order:- “2. Both the parties have submitted before us that the issue arising out of this appeal are covered by order of this ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.50/Bang/01, 793
- 3 - to 795, 742, 732 to 734/Bang/04 dt.31.3.2005 in the case of M/s.Infosys Technologies Limited, Bangalore, as well as in ITA No.1022/Bang/03 ‘A’ Bench order dt.7.4.2006 in the case of M/s.Infosys Technologies Limited Vs. JCIT.
As it is not disputed by the revenue that the issue raised in ground numbers 1 to 3 are already covered by the aforesaid decisions, we respectfully follow the same and allow the appeals of the assessee.
As we have allowed the main contention of the assessee, we do not propose to go into the alternative ground taken”.
From bare perusal of the order, it is clear that the Tribunal did not examine the case independently and placed reliance upon the order passed by it dated 31.03.2005 in ITA Nos. 50/Bang/01, 793 to 795, 742, 732 to 734/Bang/04, holding that the present case is also covered by the said order.
Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue, invited our attention to the order dated 13.02.2013 passed in ITA Nos.2973/2005, 2972/2005, 2974/2005 and 3015/2005 arising from the very same order dated 31.03.2005, on which, tribunal relied upon, whereby,
- 4 - this Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue and remanded the matters for fresh hearing in the light of the observations made therein. In view thereof, Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue, submitted that the order impugned in the present appeal may also be set aside with direction to the tribunal to decide ITA No.2291/Bang/2004 on merits in accordance with law.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent, could not and did not dispute the submissions of Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
It is clear from the impugned order that the tribunal did not consider ITA No.2291/Bang/2004 on merits independently, nor did it consider the alternative grounds of appeal raised by the respondent-assessee.
In the circumstances, we are satisfied that this appeal can be conveniently disposed of, by the following order:-
(i) The order dated 11.08.2006 passed by the tribunal in ITA No.2291/Bang/2004 is set aside and the appeal is restored to file.
- 5 -
(ii) The tribunal shall decide the appeal (ITA No.2291/Bang/2004) on merits in accordance with law.
(iii) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
It is needless to mention that, we have not dealt with the substantial questions of law that was framed at the time of admission of the appeal and left it open to the Tribunal to address the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srl.