Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.106 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7
BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD., UNIT-I, PLOT NO.78, HOSUR ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100 PAN: AAACT 4660J. ... RESPONDENT - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21-08-2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.3187/BANG/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING TO:
I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORUMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21-08-2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.3187/BANG/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The Assessment Year in this appeal pertains to 2009-10.
Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a Company which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale, including exports of solar cells, photovoltaic modules and systems. The assessee filed return of income to the Assessment Year
2009-10 declaring the income of `13,90,62,429/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 09.04.2013 and the Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee at `17,10,43,180/- and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order dated 30.10.2013 by which `1,11,79,217/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 20.09.2018, upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 21.08.2019, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in ITA No.380/2015 dated 23.11.2015, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the
Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee.
We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue at length. Learned counsel for the revenue could not dispute the position that the order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.2019 is based on the decision rendered by this Court in ‘CIT VS. SSA’S EMERALD MEADOWS’ in ITA No.380/2015 dated 23.11.2015. Since the order of the Tribunal is based on the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE