At The Outset, Shri Suryanarayana Submitted That For A.ys.2010-11 And 2011-12, The First Question Of Law Is Answered In Favour Of Assessee And Against The Reven v. V.ramaiah[3]. Consequently, Assessment Orders For The Years 2010-11 And 2011-12 Are Unsustainable And Liable To Be Quashed

Digitally signed byYASHODHA NLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.30 OF 2019 BETWEEN: M/s. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. B.C. ANAND PLOT NO.74/A, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577 501 PAN: …APPELLANT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DAVANAGERE RANGE SHREE TOWERS, NO.565/A-A1 OPP:BRR HOSTEL, HADADI ROAD DAVANAGERE-577 004 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1352 TO 1355/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 TO 2013-2014, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B' BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1352 TO 1355/BANG/2016, IN ORDER DATED 05.09.2018 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011 TO 2013-2014 (VIDE ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC., THIS ITA IS COMING ON FOR FINALHEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the assessee directed against order dated September 5, 2018 in ITA No.1352-1355/Bang/2016 passed by the ITAT[1], Bengaluru, for A.Ys[2].2010-11 to 2013-14 has been admitted to consider following questions of law; 1. “Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not quashing the assessment order passed for the Assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 for non-furnishing of reasons recorded to the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is without jurisdiction and consequently the assessment orders passed are not sustainable in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the appellant was entitled to under 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2Assessment Year section 80P on the Act on the facts and circumstance of the case”. 2. Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri Suryanarayana submitted that for A.Ys.2010-11 and 2011-12, the first question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.Ramaiah[3]. Consequently, assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri K.V.Aravind. Hence, the first question needs to be answered in favour of the assessee. 5. With regard to second question, Shri Suryanarayana submitted that the ITAT has remitted the matter to the file of the AO[4] to examine whether order under Section 127 of the Act[5]was passed. He submitted that this factual matrix ought to have been examined by the ITAT before passing the order of remand. 6. With regard to the third question, he submitted that in view of the remand order, the ITAT has not recorded any finding on the third question holding that it was premature to consider. 4. The said submission is not disputed by Shri K.V.Aravind. Hence, the first question needs to be answered in favour of the assessee. 5. With regard to second question, Shri Suryanarayana submitted that the ITAT has remitted the matter to the file of the AO[4] to examine whether order under Section 127 of the Act[5]was passed. He submitted that this factual matrix ought to have been examined by the ITAT before passing the order of remand. 6. With regard to the third question, he submitted that in view of the remand order, the ITAT has not recorded any finding on the third question holding that it was premature to consider. 7. In reply, Shri K.V.Aravind submitted that as per notification issued under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act, CBDT[6] has issued a circular allocating the work and in furtherance thereof, the JCIT[7]has concurrent jurisdiction to allocate the work to various ranges. It is not in dispute that the assessee's case was under JCIT and he has passed the assessment order. Therefore, there is no error in the remand order passed by the ITAT. 4Assessing Officer 5 Income Tax Act, 1961 6Central Board of Direct Taxes 7Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused records. 9. Admittedly, the assessee's case falls within the range headed by the JCIT. The JCIT had further allocated the case to the AO. The assessment order has been passed by the JCIT himself. In this factual matrix, the ITAT has remitted the matter to the AO to examine whether there was an order under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. In our considered view, the ITAT itself could have examined the aspect of JCIT’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of the ITAT. Hence, the following; ORDER (i)Appeal is allowed in part; (ii)Assessment orders for A.Ys.2010-11 and 2011-12 are quashed; 2011-12 are quashed; (iii)The first question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; (iv)Without expressing any opinion on merits on questions No.2 and 3, the matter is remitted to the ITAT to pass a fresh order wholly uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order; (v)Remand order passed by the ITAT shall be limited only so far as A.Ys.2012-13 and 2013-14; and be limited only so far as A.Ys.2012-13 and 2013-14; and (vi)All contentions kept open including the contentions raised in this appeal. contentions raised in this appeal. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE