Ita/1091/2017 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) v. M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 29[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071| PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’‘’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW A BETWEEN: LT.A. NO.1091 OF 2017 1.|PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (LTU) J.S.S. TOWERS, 100 FT. RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALORE-560085. 2.|COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLR-4(1)(1), BANGALORE BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA> BANGALORE. (BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,). .... APPELLANTS AND" M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,.NO.12, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE|BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROADBANGALORE-560093.PAN: AAACI 44037. (BY MR. PERCY PARDIWALLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR|MS. MANASA, ADV.,). .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.01.2017 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1028/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200/703, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO: (1) FORMULATE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED ABOVE,AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DECIDING THE SUBSTANTIAL.QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS. | (ii) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2017,|VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE ITAT C BENCH, BANGALOREFOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200/7-O8. (iil) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT|DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE.INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIYT. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Percy Pardiwalla, learned Senior counsel along with| Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for the assessee. LearnedSenior.counselfor.tneASSESSEE,On)08.01.2021, had pointed out that the Assessing Officer hadfailed to implement the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(nereinafter referred to as the Act for short), within theprescribed time limit that is 31.03.2015. Therefore, thequestion involved in this appeal has been rendered academic. 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the revenue stated that the Assessing Officer has not passed any order giving effect to the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax within the prescribed time limit.However, it is further submitted that merely because theAssessing Officer has not given effect to the order passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax, same would not debar thisCourt from examining the issue involved in this appeal. 3. However, in our opinion, since the Assessing Officerhas failed to pass the order giving effect to the order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax, the questions of lawinvoived in tnis appeal nave been rendered academic.Therefore, it is not necessary for us to answer the same. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE RV