By Sri. K v. Aravind A/W Sri. M. Dilip.,Advocates

Digitally signedby D HEMALocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2023:KHC:21646 WP No. 11156 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 11156 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING A REGISTERED OFFICE AT N.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE-56 0001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.RAJESH MEHTA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHU H.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 5(1) (1), BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. V. ARAVIND A/W SRI. M. DILIP.,ADVOCATES) THIS WP IS FILED UNDED ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 23/1051490860(1) DATED 28/03/2023 ISSUED BY R1 (ANNEXURE NO A) AS NULL AND VOID AND REMAND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (ANNEXURE NO B) BACK TO R2 FOR RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2017-18. BEARING NO. IBA/AST/S/143(3) 2019-20/1023546218(1) DTD 31.12. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-A dated 28.03.2023 as null and void and remand the proceedings relating to the assessment order (Annexure - B) back to respondent No.l2 for re-assessment of the Return of Income for the Assessment year 2017-2018. 2. The relevant facts made out are that the assessment order came to be passed for the assessment year 2017-2018 on 31.12.2019 and aggrieved by such assessment order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. In the meanwhile, it is borne out from records that on 30.01.2020 application came to be filed under Section 154 of - 3 - the Act seeking for rectification. The said application came to be disposed of as per the order at Annexure - E dated 24.02.2020 during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was under the impression that the order at Annexure-E would be followed by a order of rectification in light of the observation made at the end of the order at Annexure - E, which reads as follows: Therefore, the rectification order will be passed making the necessary corrections as mentioned above and restricting the Section 10AA deduction to Rs.17,29,81,487 as detailed above. 5. It is submitted that the Commissioner Appeal has disposed of the appeal without waiting or taking note of the rectification order as a result of which petitioner is aggrieved by the result of dismissal of appeal, copy of which is produced at Annexure - A. 6. Heard both the sides. It is noticed that though the order at Annexure - E contemplates issuing of further order, learned - 4 - counsel appearing for the Department Sri. K.V. Aravind, submits that a detailed reading of Annexure - E would show that the order of rectification is the order at Annexure - E and the last three lines of the order requires to be ignored as in substance rectification has been made to the original order of the assessment in the order at Annexure - E. The said submission requires acceptance in light of the stand of the revenue. If that were to be so and the order of rectification having been passed on 24.02.2020, the first respondent was considering the appeal was required to take note of that rectification order under 154 in the appeal that was pending before the first respondent in appeal No. 5/11165/2019-20. - 4 - counsel appearing for the Department Sri. K.V. Aravind, submits that a detailed reading of Annexure - E would show that the order of rectification is the order at Annexure - E and the last three lines of the order requires to be ignored as in substance rectification has been made to the original order of the assessment in the order at Annexure - E. The said submission requires acceptance in light of the stand of the revenue. If that were to be so and the order of rectification having been passed on 24.02.2020, the first respondent was considering the appeal was required to take note of that rectification order under 154 in the appeal that was pending before the first respondent in appeal No. 5/11165/2019-20. 7. Accordingly, in the light of the facts as noticed above, the order at Annexure - A is set aside, the appeal is restored to file and the petitioner is at liberty to place the order at Annexure - E before the Appellate Authority, which is to take note of it appropriately. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge Annexure - E by filing an appeal if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. If the same is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the authorities not to consider any objections as regards - 5 - limitation. In so far as proceedings before the CIT (A), on placing of order at Annexure - E before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is at liberty to make further grounds. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE AG