Ita/392/2022 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Karantaka Vikas Grameen Bank

Digitallysigned by BLAVANYALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:39736-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE. C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, HUBLI. TDS WARD-1, HUBLI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARANTAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, P B ROAD, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD-580008, PAN: P B ROAD, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD-580008, PAN: …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR S V, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28/02/2022 PASSED IN ITA NO.1527/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Ravi Shankar S.V., for respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1527/Bang/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 10.07.2023 to consider the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) is barred by limitation as provided under Section 201(3) without considering that the assessee has not filed statement under Section 200 in respect of all those cases of interest payment where TDS was not made? 2. Whether the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) is barred by limitation as provided under Section 201(3) ignoring that the assessee has not at all deducted tax at source on payment of interst on term deposits to members and these details are not furnished in the statement filed under Section 200 of the Act which shows that no question arises of the assessee having filed the statement under Section 200 and therefore the limit of 2 years from the end of financial year in which statement is filed under Section 200, will not apply in present case?” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MPK CT:VN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45