Itxa/1433/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Pune v. M/S. Patni Computer Systems Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Patni Computer Systems Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Padma Divakar, for the Appellant. Mr. S. N. Inamdar with Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 28[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2004-05, following reframed questions of law have been raised for our consideration:- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act as the issue of set-off of losses of eligible 10A deduction units with profitable 10A units is a debatable issue even though this issue was never considered by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s. 154 of the Income-Tax Act and such issue was raised by the Assessee in its application made to the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income-Tax Act? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing interest u/s. 244A on self assessment tax paid by the Assessee Company u/s 140A of the Income-Tax Act? 2In respect of Question (1), Counsel for the parties state that the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside with regard to the above issue and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision as the impugned order has proceeded on a complete misunderstanding of the fact before it. As a consequence of the misunderstanding, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal of the Respondent-Assessee by holding that the Assessing Officer incorrectly exercised jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. This inspite of the the fact that the application under Section 154 of the Act was made by the Respondent-Assessee before the Assessing Officer who rejected the application. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the rectification application made by the Respondent-Assessee. It was against the order of the CIT(A) that the Revenue was in Appeal and not the Respondent-Assessee. In these circumstances, the impugned order with regard to Question (1) is set aside and restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits. All contentions left open, to be urged before the Tribunal. 3So far as Question (2) is concerned, the Counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favoor of the Respondent-Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v/s. H.E.G. Ltd. reported in 324 ITR 331. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain Question (2). 4Accordingly, appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)