Ita/200001/2016 Of Shri Tirumalarao P Mokashi v. The Commissisoner Of Income-Tax

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAKALABURAGI! BENC DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF AUGUST 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAOITA No.200001/2016 Between Shri Tirumalarao P. MokashiPWD ContractorBehind Patil Nursing Home».R.Colony, Bijapur — 986 103 ... Appellant (By Sri A. Shankar, Senior Counsel) And: The Commissioner of Income-TaxKarnataka (Central)Central Revenue BuildingQueens Road, Bangalore — 560 OO1 .- Respondent (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) This ITA is filed under Section QJ60A of the Income TaAct, 1961 praying to formulate the substantial questions of lawas stated above and answer the same in favour of the appellantand to allow the appeal and set aside the findings therein tothe extent against the appellant in the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.503(B)/2009 dated 30.09.2009 referred toas Annexure A relating to assessment year 2005-2006. ThisappealcomingOT]forordersthis|, ./S.SUJATHA J.,delivered the following: JUDGMENT This income tax appeal is filed under Section 260 Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) assailingthe order of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bengaluru “A” Bench, Bengaluru in ITA No.503(B)/2009dated 30.09.2009 relating to the assessment year2005-06. a2The appellant is an individual engaged inexecution of works contracts. The appellant in turn sub-|contracts certain portions of the work to independentthird parties. Relating to the assessment year 2005-06,the return filed by the appellant was processed undersection 143(1) of the Act and taken up for scrutiny.Finally,assessmentyOrderWaS passedundersection 143(3) of the Act by making certain additions tothe returned income. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnataka Central, Bengaluru (for short ‘CIT)|issued notice dated 07.07.2008 under Section 263 of theAct proposing to pass an order under Section 263 as theassessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the revenue on the ground that tax deductionat source was not made and the aspect involvingdisallowance under Section 4O(a)(ia) of the Act was notexamined by the assessing officer. The CIT in the orderunder Section 263 of the Act, confirmed that theassessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the revenue, setting aside the assessment orderdirected the assessing officer to re-compute the income ofthe appellant by disallowing the sub-contract expenditure.The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the CITpassed under Section 263 of the Act, preferred the appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), whichcame to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the assessee is|before this Court. 3.Appeal No.724/Bng/2016 filed by the assesseeis pending before the ITAT against the order giving effectto, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by theCommissioner ot Income Tax. E#InVIEWoT|thesecondproviso)"section 4O(a)(ia) of the Act is held to be declaratory andcurative and has retrospective effect from 1[&)]April 2005 byvarious Hon’ble High Courts including the jurisdictionalHigh Court in ITA No.100056/2014 disposed of today, theorder giving effect to, the order of CIT under Section 263 ofthe Act requires to be considered in the pending appealbefore the ITAT being uninfluenced by any of theobservations made in the said order i.e., order passedunder Section 263(1) as well as the order in ITANo.503(B)/2009 dated 30.09.2009 by ITAT. Hence, theHon'ble ITAT shall dispose of the pending AppealNo./724/Bng/2016 in accordance with law relating to thassessment year 2005-2006 as aforesaid. �(�;�+?�"6�)�+� 6"�+& �,/�>�+&)�"(�"6�6� ��(-�"6&�=&) ()� !�>�+&)�"(�"6�! ?�?"�!,�(")� ��&+# �**"�,�(-!./�����&) (,&�,�&1"&+,�"6��(�)+��&�"6�)�+ =";+# �-�3���2��-�3���2� ��@&(