Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.69 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA
MANGALURU-575001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN
MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI
AMBALAPADI PO, UDUPI-576103. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DILIPKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL-576 104 PAN: AACCS 4699E. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.337/PAN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, PRAYING TO:
2 (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.337/PAN/2016 DATED 08-09-2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-03. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court by order dated 09.11.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the interest adjusted against regular tax by relying
3 on the earlier provision 214, when there is specific provision clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 244A is available under the Act for grant of interest on refunds and without considering the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd V/s CIT (reported in 280 ITR page 643), also in case of CIT V/s Gujurath Fluoro Chemicals (reported in 358 ITR page 291) and also the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT V/s G.B. Transports (reported in 158 ITR page 548) ?"
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid substantial question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's case itself, by judgment dated 07.10.2020 passed in ITA No.582/2013. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.
For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment dated 07.10.2020 passed in ITA No.582/2013, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
4 In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV