Ita/417/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Vijaya Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JUNE 2020. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA_ LT.A. NO.417 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2 |ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. VIJAYA BANK H.O. CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT| NO.41/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV., FOR © SRI. PUKALE MANOJ DEVINDER, ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29/06/2012 PASSED IN ITA|NO.563/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED29/06/2012.PASSEDBY|THE|ITAT,BANGALOREIN|ITANO.563/BANG/2011|AND|CONFIRM.THE|ORDEROF.THE|APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY|THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. THISLIACOMINGONFOR.HEARING,THISALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DAY, JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.Pukale Manoj Devinder, learned counsel for the|respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income|Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act forShort) has been preferred by the revenue. The subjectmatter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of thisCourt vide order dated 09.01.2013 on the followingsubstantial question of law: (I)Whether the tribunal was correct in holdingthat invoking of Section 2635 of the Act bythe Commissioner of [Income Tax forrevising the order passed by the AssessingOfficer order giving effect to CIT (A) orderthat invoking of Section 2635 of the Act bythe Commissioner of [Income Tax forrevising the order passed by the AssessingOfficer order giving effect to CIT (A) order is bad on the ground that the itemsconsidered under Section 263 of the Act,were not subject matter in appeal beforethe Appellate Commissioner, when theorder giving effect was contrary to thefindingrecordedby theAppellate|Commissioner in appeal and recorded aperverse finding? 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned|counsel for the parties jointly submitted that in view ofthe|judgmentdated16.01.7070passed|In|ITANo.18/2014 as well as judgment dated 22.01.2020passed in ITA No.142/2016, the issue framed in thisappeal has been rendered academic. 4. For the reasons assigned by tnis Court in ITA)Nos.18/2014 and 142/2016, the appeal is disposed of. RY| Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-JUDGE.