Itat v. Canara Bank Decided On 13.09.2022. This Submission Is Also Not Disputed By Shri. Sanmathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) LTU, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANALA, BENGALURU-560095. 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. LTU, 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E I SANMATHI, SR. STANDING COUNSEL AND SRI ARAVIND K V.,SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) SRI ARAVIND K V.,SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. M/S. CANARA BANK DigitallyHEAD OFFICE, signed byRAMYA D112, J C ROAD, Location:BENGALURU-56002. High Courtof Karnatakasigned byRAMYA D112, J C ROAD, Location:BENGALURU-56002. High Courtof Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, SR. ADV. FOR; SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED24/10/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1019/BANG/2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 24.10.2017 in ITA No.1019/Bang/2015 by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal[1], Bengaluru has been admitted to consider following questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the reassessment orders passed for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by erroneously holding that the said reassessment order is bad in law as the reopening is under section 147 is initiated beyond 4 years by relying on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Multiserium Media Pvt.Ltd.,? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances made under section 36(1)(vii) and also (viia) by relying upon its earlier orders passed for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the addition made on account of commission on locker rent by relying upon its earlier decision for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 passed in the case of the assessee?" 2. At the out set, Shri. T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee submits that first question of law does not arise for consideration in this appeal and the same is not disputed by Shri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue. 3. Shri.Suryanarayana, further submits that insofar as second question is concerned, the ITAT has followed its earlier order for AY[2] 2009-10 and 2011-12 and the said issue has not been challenged by the Revenue. Thus, the Revenue has accepted the said order. This submission is also not disputed by Shri. Sanmathi. 4. With regard to third question, Shri.Suryanarayana, submits that the issue is covered against the Revenue in 2 Assessment year ITAT No.268/2018 C/w ITA No.268/2018 in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Canara Bank decided on 13.09.2022. This submission is also not disputed by Shri. Sanmathi. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 6. Questions No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BH