Ita/511/2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mysore Minerals Ltd

Digitallysigned byBHARATHI SLocation:HIGH COURTOFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:40548-DBITA No. 511 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26 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. 511 OF 2022 BETWEEN: THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LTD.) BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTINAGAR, TTMC BUILDING, A BLOCK, 5 FLOOR, SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 PAN: …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 07/03/2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 464/BANG/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 AND ETC. - 2 - THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellant/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. Madhusudhan 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 07.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.464/Bang/2020 for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. This Court, admitted the appeal on 06.03.2023 to consider the following substantial questions of law: NC: 2024:KHC:40548-DBITA No. 511 of 2022 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the re-opening of the assessment in the case of the assessee by holding that the same is change of opinion, ignoring the proviso to section 148 of the IT Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating the fact that there was no change of opinion since the issue involved in re-opening was never specially scrutinized during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of CSR expenses u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in view of the Explanation 2 to the said section? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified on the facts of - 4 - ITA No. 511 of 2022 the case and in law, in not upholding the disallowance made under section 37(1) even though the assessee had failed to establish that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business? 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 - 5 - 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 SMJ List No.: 3