M S RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE vs DR E KONAPPA REDDY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

I.T.A. NO.174/2021 BETWEEN:

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1)(1), ROOM NO.217, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC, BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BRIGADE SOUTH PARADE, NO.10, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. PAN: AACCC452A

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NAGESHWAR RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.901/BANG/2019 AND ITA NO. 1010/BAN/2019 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.900/BANG/2019 and ITA No.1010/BANG/2019 relating to the Assessment Year 2009-2010 raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as the Tribunal has held that assessing authority has not followed the due procedure laid down in section 144C of the Act in passing assessment order without appreciating that the assessing authority has passed order in pursuance to remand order passed by Tribunal and it is order giving effect passed under section 143(3) & 144C read with section 254 of the Act and as such passing of draft assessment order

does not arise as per section 144C and 254 of the Act?”

(2) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in quashing the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by assessing authority on the ground that this is in violation of the mandate of section 144C of the Act without appreciating that order passed by the assessing authority in question is not the order in first instance?”

(3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing Revenue’s appeal by holding that assessment order itself has been quashed and as such order passed under section 263 of the Act does not arise?”

For the reasons stated in ITA No.128/2021, in the assessee’s own case, the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Substantial question of law No.3 does not arise for consideration since, the same

would render academic in view of the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 having been answered in favour of the assessee.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, all the pending I.A.s are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

BVK

M S RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE vs. DR E KONAPPA REDDY