PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S JEANS KNIT PVT.LTD

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.573 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX-4, BMTC COMPLEX

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(5)

BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. E.I. SANMATHI, AND Mr. JEEVAN J. NEERLAGI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. JEANS KNIT PVT. LTD., NO.21, E1, 2ND PHASE INDUSTRIAL AREA PEENYA BANGALORE - 560 058 PAN: AABCJ 4513 B. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.839/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

2 (I) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (II) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.839/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST O OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 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 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue by holding that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 10-B of the I.T. Act, even when the assessing authority on the basis of the facts and materials on record has

3 categorically rightly held that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions for seeking deduction under said provision? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal can be said as perverse since it has merely followed its earlier order which has not reached its finality and in the said order the Tribunal merely affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 10B without recording finding of its own and omitting to consider and adjudicate the grounds of the Revenue in proper perspective? 2. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.Nos.559/2015, 571/2016 and 580/2016, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss