Ita/182/2017 Of M/S Padmini Products (P) Td v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD ILT.A. NO.182 OF 2017 BETWEEN: M/S. PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,.NO.157, K. KAMARAJ ROAD,|BENGALURU - 560 0427(REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,SRI. PRABHU KIRAN,|AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,|S/O LATE NAGARAJ N.VEMULKAR) APPELLANT (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K, ADV.) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ©INCOME TAXCIRCLE - 12(2),BMTC BUILDING, 5 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, —BANGALORE - 560095.(BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) RESPONDENT| THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF|I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:03/03/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.527/BANG/2016, FORTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TOA) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAWSTATED ABOVE.» B) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNEDORDER OF THE ITAT, BENGALURU ‘B’ BENCH BEARINGIN ITA NO.527/BANG/2016 DATED:03/03/2017 FOR AY2017-13. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,|THIS|DAY,ALOKARADHE|J.,DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Chythanya_K.K,learned.counsel|for.the aSSeSSAE., Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. 2 |This appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘theAct’, for short) has been preferred by the assessee. Thesubject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment.Year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted by a Bench ofthis Court vide order dated 28.06.2017 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: I.Whether,In|thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was|right in law tn upholding the validity of.assessment made on the basis of originalreturn instead of revised return?circumstances of the case, the ITAT was|right in law tn upholding the validity of.assessment made on the basis of originalreturn instead of revised return? TT.Without prejudice to the above, whether,|in the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT ought to have directedthe Respondent to consider the loss as.refiected in the revised return?in the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT ought to have directedthe Respondent to consider the loss as.refiected in the revised return? TTT.Whether,In|thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was|right in law in holding that the Appellant ts.eligible to claim depreciation only with.reference to the written down value oftransferred|assetsIn|thehands ofpredecessor firm and not with reference to.actual cost incurred by it?circumstances of the case, the ITAT was|right in law in holding that the Appellant ts.eligible to claim depreciation only with.reference to the written down value oftransferred|assetsIn|thehands ofpredecessor firm and not with reference to.actual cost incurred by it? TV.Whether,In|thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was|rignt in law in upholaing tne action of the.Learned Respondent in invoking 5[th]Provisoto Section 32(1) of the IT Act in the.circumstances of the case, the ITAT was|rignt in law in upholaing tne action of the.Learned Respondent in invoking 5[th]Provisoto Section 32(1) of the IT Act in the. assessment.Yea’rssubsequent|tO|theassessment year in which the succession|took place i.e., for the AY 2012-13? VJ Whether,In|thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was|rignt in law in upholaing tne action of the.Learned Commissioner Appeals in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1)? 3.)When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that substantia]questions of law No. III, IV and V Nave already beenanswered by a Bencn of this Court in the case ofassessee in ITA No.154/2014 dated 05.10.2020. 4Tne aforesaid.SUDMISSION|could not pe!disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 5.|For the reasons assigned by us in theJudgment dated 05.10.2020 passed in ITA No.154/2014,the substantial questions of law No. III, IV and V areanswered in favour of the assessee and against the VJ Whether,In|thefactsand|In|thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was|rignt in law in upholaing tne action of the.Learned Commissioner Appeals in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1)? 3.)When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that substantia]questions of law No. III, IV and V Nave already beenanswered by a Bencn of this Court in the case ofassessee in ITA No.154/2014 dated 05.10.2020. 4Tne aforesaid.SUDMISSION|could not pe!disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. 5.|For the reasons assigned by us in theJudgment dated 05.10.2020 passed in ITA No.154/2014,the substantial questions of law No. III, IV and V areanswered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the order dated 03.03.2017passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is herebyquashed. 6.|Insofar as the substantial questions of lawNo. I and II are concerned, learned counsel for theassessee contended that the assessee had filed a valid|Regular Return and a valid Revised Return. However,while computing the income, the Assessing Officer hasnot reflected the income in original return. He,therefore, submits that the Assessing Officer be directedto examine the income as reflected in the revised returnand to proceed in accordance with law.| J |The aforesaid prayer has been opposed bylearned counsel for the revenue. 8.|In view of the fact that as per the contentionof the assessee, a factual error has crept-in in the orderpassed by the Assessing Officer, we are inclined to.accede to the prayer made by the assessee. We, therefore, direct that the Assessing Officer shall look into. the factual aspects as ascertained by the assesse and all the contentions in this regard are kept open. 9 |In|VIEWofaforesaiddirections,the|substantial questions of law No. I and II need not beanswerecd. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. an/-CT-HR| Sd/-| JUDGE Sd/-| JUDGE|