Ita/219/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Shri M J Balachander

Digitally signed byANUSHA VLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. E.I. SANMATHI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: SHRI. M.J. BALACHANDER 16, 1 MAIN ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. S. SHARATH, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.92/BANG/2012 AND ITA NO.97/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21.12.2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'B' BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.92 & 97/BANG/2012 DATED 21.12.2012, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Shri Sharath, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has filed a memo of even date and it reads as follows: “It is submitted that the Respondent in the above Appeals were assessed on protective basis. The department made very same additions on substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Venkatesha Education Society, where the department was in Appeal before this Hon’ble Court in ITA Nos. 248/2013, 254/2013, 255/2013, 257/2013, 258/2013. The Assessee M/s. Venkatesha Education Society paid the disputed tax under vivad se vishwas scheme. This Hon’ble Court dismissed the department appeals of the Assessee viz., M/s. Venkatesh Education Society by order dated 10.01.2023. Thus, the Respondent Assessee being assessed on protective basis, in view of FAQ No.35 to Circular No.9/2020 the department has to pass the rectification order deleting the protective additions. In this regard the Respondent prays before this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the Appeals of the department. ” 2. Shri Sharath submitted that other assessee, M/s. Venkatesha Education Society, has paid tax under vivad se vishwas scheme. Therefore, this appeal does not survive for consideration. He further submitted that this appeal arises out of protective assessment and the only thing remains to be done by the AO[1] is to pass rectification order as per question No.25 in Circular No.9/2020. The same is not disputed by Shri E.I.Sanmathi. 3. In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the AO to pass rectification order. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 1 Assessing Officer