Of Income-Tax And Another v. Millipore India P

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THR 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICK N. KUMAR ANT) THR HON' BLE MR. JUSTICEK B. VEBRAPPA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.221/2009 BBRTWEHR 1.)THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARANAGAR. MYSORE-570 OOS.| iaTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-1(2), 59/1,CIRCLE-1(2), 59/1, SHILPASHREE, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARANAGAR MYSORE-570 OOS.| .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) ANT) M/S. VIJAY PRECISION DIES (P) LTD.,90, K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI MYSORK. —. RBSPONDBENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR & SRI. M. LAVA, ADVS.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED|O1.12.2008|PASSEDIN|ITANO.722/BNG/2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-O5, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL)QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO)ALLOW THR APPEAL AND SHIT ASIDE THE ORDERPASSEDBY|THEITAT,BANGALORE|TN|ITANo./722/BNG/2008,DATED|O1.12.2008|AN]CONFIRMINGTH EORDERORTHEAPPBRLLATECOMMISSIONBR AND CONFIRM THR ORDER PASSED|BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), MYSORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICEAND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,N. KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:JUDGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against the)order passed by the Tribunal which has held that the|Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under|section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as ‘Act), in view of the order passed by the Assessing|Authority is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest|ot the revenue. iaThe assessee claimed deductions under Section80-C and 80O-IA(9) of the Act. The Assessing Authoritywithout noticing the provisions of Section 8Q0-IA(9) allowedboth the deductions. The Commissioner invoked Section263 and initiated the proceedings. After hearing the partieshe was of the view that the Assessing Officer withoutreducing the business profit considered for granting relief|under Section 80-IA as granted deductions under Section80-H of the Act on the business profits. Therefore, he was ofthe view that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3.In appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held theorder passed by the Assessing Officer was in consonancewith the order of the Tribunal referred in the case of ‘Mittal Clothing Company’.Therefore, it held the initiation of theproceedings under Section 263 of the Act was withoutjurisdiction and accordingly set aside the order. This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question oflaw: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in!holding that the order of the Commissioner|passed u/s.263 of the Act is withoutjurisdiction as the order of assessment wasnot erroneous and prejudicial to the interestof the revenue without examining theprovisions of Section SOIA(9) of the Actrelied on by the Commissioner to pass)order u/S.2638 of the Act?” 4This Court had an occasion to consider the saidsubstantial question of law in the case of|COMMISSIONER| OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER v. MILLIPORE INDIA P.. LTD & CONNECTED APPEALS (2012, 341 ITR 219) (KARN).After considering the statutory provisions and_|several judgments of this Court, the said question wasanswered by this Court and held as under: “In so far as the substantial question of lawregarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to|revise the orders passed by the assessing| authority on the ground that he holds a differentview from the view expressed by the assessingauthority is concerned we do not intend to go into|the said question as in view of the law declared byus the assessee is going to benefit even otherwise, in view of the same we pass the following order: 4This Court had an occasion to consider the saidsubstantial question of law in the case of|COMMISSIONER| OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER v. MILLIPORE INDIA P.. LTD & CONNECTED APPEALS (2012, 341 ITR 219) (KARN).After considering the statutory provisions and_|several judgments of this Court, the said question wasanswered by this Court and held as under: “In so far as the substantial question of lawregarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to|revise the orders passed by the assessing| authority on the ground that he holds a differentview from the view expressed by the assessingauthority is concerned we do not intend to go into|the said question as in view of the law declared byus the assessee is going to benefit even otherwise, in view of the same we pass the following order: (1) LT.A. Nos.3213 of 2005, 139 of 2007, 137of 2007, 154 of 2007, 155 of 2007, 156 of 2007,|1086 of 2006, 109 of 2007, 73 of 2006, 75 of2006, 62 of 2007, 64 of 2007, 674 of 2007, 36 of|2007, 234 of 2009 and 54 of 2008 are dismissed. (2)[..T.A. Nos.379 of 2008, 704 of 2008,227 of 2009, 216 of 2008, 429 of 2008, 165 of|2008, 115 of 2010 and 87 of 2010 are allowed,|setting aside the order of the Tribunal and|restoring the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granting relief to the assessee and tfnecessary the assessing authority shall passconsequential orders giving the benefit to the|aASSCSSCEaS|declared|underthisjudgmentwherever it is necessary” 5This Court held that the assessee is entitled forthe benefit claimed. In view of the same, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in initiating the proceedingsunder Section 263, that is what has been held by theTribunal. Therefore, we do not see any error in theimpugned order. The substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No merit. Appeal is dismissed.| od/-|JUDGE|od/-JUDGESbs*