Ita/771/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.igate Global Solutions Ltd

1 IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATED THIS THE 28[‘T]DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 PRESENT THR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR. AND THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR| ITA NO.771 OF 2009 BETWEEN; 1.The Commissioner of Income-tax C.R.Building, Queens RoadBangalore|Bangalore| ?.The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-11(4), C.R.Building| Queens Road, Bangalore _ APPKRLLANTS (By Sri.K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: M/s. iGate Global Solutions Ltd., 158-162 & 165-170, EPIP Phase-lIlWhitefield, Bangalore — 560 066 ~_ RBSPONDENT. (By Sri.Suryanarayana, Advocate, forM/s. King & Partridge, Advocates)| -0-0-0-0-O0- This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income TaxAct 1961, arising out of order dated 10.07.2009 passed in|ITA No.214/BNG/2009, for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, praying this court to 1) formulate the substantial questions|of law stated therein and 2) to allow the appeal and set aside theorderpassedby theITATBangalore|in.ITANo.214/BNG/2009 dated 10.07.2009 confirming the order of|the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by|the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4),|Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal coming on _ for Orders this day,N.AUMAR, J.delivered the following:- JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against the orderpassed by the tribunal which held that the commissioner of|income tax has not been able to establish errors that are.prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in his order under|section 263 and therefore prays for setting aside this order|and allow the appeal. D2 It is well settled position of law that for invoking|power under Section 263 of the Income tax Act, twoconditions have to be satisfied. Firstly, the order should be)erroneous. Secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interests|of the revenue. If only both these conditions are satisfied,the Commissioner of Income tax gets jurisdiction under|Section 263 of the Income tax Act to revise such orders. The.tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the view)taken by the assessing authority is one possible view. More) importantly, a categorical finding is recorded that the order|passed by him is not prejudicial to the interest of the|revenue. If two views are possible, and merely because the|revisional authority did not like the view taken by the)assessing authority, there is no ground for interfering under|section 263. Moreover, when the order passed by the|assessing authority is not prejudicial to the interest of the|revenue, the question of exercising the power under section|263 does not arise. Accordingly we do not see any merit in this appeal. Thesubstantial questions of law are answered in favour of the.assessee and against the revenue. Appeal is dismissed. BSV | Sd/- JUDGE. Sd/-. JUDGE.