Appell v. State Bank Of Patiala

ITA No. 275 of 2017 (O&M) 1 Gurbax SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AB 04.9; |2017.10.13 16:21CHANDIGARH.ITA No. 275 of 2017 (O&M).Date of decision: 26.09.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. .---- Appell Vs. State Bank of Patiala ..-.- Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL, Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Senior Standing Counsel |for the appellant-revenue. — Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1,The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under|section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 29.11.2016, Annexure A.6, passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (in short, “the Tribunal’)in ITA No. 871/CHD/2016, for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming|following substantial question of law:-_ “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh is legally correct in deleting the|addition of245,76,00,000/- (<2,32,60,607/- made underSection 143(3) +243,43,39,393/-, made under Section 143(3)r.w.s 263) on account of apportionment of expenses against|exempted income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by)holding that the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax|Act, 1961 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income|Tax, Patiala has already been quashed by the Tribunal?” |A few tacts relevant for the decision of the controversy|involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Assessment underSection 143(3) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer at an income|of|<1065,37,96,820/- which included disallowance of<2,32,60,607/- onaccount of apportionment of expenses against exempted income underSection 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962(in short, “the Rules’) vide order dated 23.12.2011, Annexure A.1. Lateron, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala passed order under|Section 263 of the Act on 18.03.2014, Annexure A.2, holding the aforesaid|assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the)revenue and set aside the assessment order with direction to enhance.income of the assessee by|y43.544 crore being the difference of|disallowance. The assessee challenged the order under Section 263 of theAct before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 28.03.2016, Annexure A.3, theTribunal quashed the order under Section 263 of the Act. In compliance to|the order dated 18.03.2014 under Section 263 of the Act, the AssessingOfficer passed order on 15.10.2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section263 of the Act by making further addition of|y43,43,39,393/- underSection 14A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an|appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The)CIT(A) relying upon the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.03.2016)held that order dated 15.10.2014, passed by the Assessing Officer undersection 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act stood infructuous and)accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated27.05.2016, Annexure A.5 given in Appeal No. 224/IT/CIT(A)/PTA/14-15. Not satisfied with the order, the department filed an appeal before the| Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.11.2016, Annexure A.6, the Tribunaldismissed the appeal of the department on the ground that since the orderunder Section 263 of the Act had been set aside and quashed by it, theassessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act)would not survive and the present proceedings stood infructous. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. | onWe have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. _ Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.11.2016, Annexure A.6, the Tribunaldismissed the appeal of the department on the ground that since the orderunder Section 263 of the Act had been set aside and quashed by it, theassessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act)would not survive and the present proceedings stood infructous. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. | onWe have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. _ 4Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue very fairly|submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered againstthe revenue, by judgments of this Court in ITA No. 270 of 2016,The Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank ofPatialadecided|on 27.02.2017and ITA No. 193 of 2017,)The Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patialadecided on 22.05.2017.Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, theappeal stands dismissed. | September 26, 2017 Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable (Ajay Kumar MiuittalJudge (Amit Rawal) |JudgeYes/No.Yes/No |