Ita/679/2023 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S Cae India Pvt Ltd

Digitally signedbyMARIGANGAIAHPREMAKUMARILocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA NC: 2024:KHC:39226-DB ITA No. 679 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 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. 679 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1), KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E. I., ADV.) AND: M/S. CAE INDIA PVT. LTD., SURVEY NO.26 AND 27, 1 FLOOR, IVC ROAD, UGANVADI POST, BANDRAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE-562110 PAN: . …RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19/06/2023 PASSED IN IT(TP)A NO. 40/BANG/2023, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, PRAYING TO 1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 19/06/2023 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN IT(TP)A NO.40/BANG/2023 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 (ANNEXURE- A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT 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. 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 19.06.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in IT(TP)A.No.40/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2010- 11, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39226-DBITA No. 679 of 2023 quashing the order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(3) by holding that the said order beyond the period of limitation ignoring the exclusion of either the date of the order or the time-barring date while computing the period of 60 days for purpose of computing period of limitation? 2. Whether under the fats and circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal is right in law in relying on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Pilzer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., and erroneously holding that the orders were passed without following the provisions of Section 153(3) of the Act ignoring that said order has not reached finality?” 3. It is noticedthat the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39