M/S MINDTREE LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/421/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01033078201709 August 2017Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.G.RAMESH3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court clarified that it is implied that the Assessing Officer must pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. With this clarification, the appeal was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The assessee's grievance was that the ITAT order did not explicitly state that the Assessing Officer (AO) must reconsider the matter in accordance with law before passing a fresh order in the name of the merged company. The ITAT's operative portion directed the AO to pass a fresh order in the name of the merged company after affording an opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT's order implicitly directed the AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, or if an express statement was required.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.421/2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.421/2017

BETWEEN :

M/s. MINDTREE LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. AZTECSOFT LTD. NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MINDTREE LTD.) GLOBAL VILLAGE, RVCE POST MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU- 560 059 REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SRI JAGANNATHAN CHAKRAVARTHI S/O. SRI NARASIMHAN C.K. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K. ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1) BMTC BUILDING, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE- 560 095

...RESPONDENT

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

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU ‘A’ BENCH IN IT(TP)A

ITA No.421/2017

-2-

NO.1434/BANG/2010 DATED 31.03.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

1.

The only grievance urged by Sri Chythanya.K.K., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not expressly stated in the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 that the Assessing Officer has to reconsider the matter in accordance with law before passing a fresh order in the name of the merged company.

2.

It is relevant to extract operative portion of the impugned order: “7. ………………………… We accordingly set aside the order and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order in the name of the merged company after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have restored the matter to the AO for passing a fresh order, the other grounds raised in this appeal becomes academic and we accordingly decline to adjudicate the same.”

3.

In our opinion, it is implied that the Assessing Officer has to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. With this

ITA No.421/2017

-3-

clarification, the appeal is disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal, IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration; it stands disposed of accordingly.

Appeal disposed of. Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR

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 →