Rp/183/2022 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Digitallysigned byRUPA VLocation:High Courtof Karnataka NC: 2023:KHC:20903-DB RP No.183 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF JUNE, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION NO.183 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE17(1), BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND:1. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, 2ND FLOORM, R P BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. SHARATH, ADV.,) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW JUDGEMENT DATED 07/12/2020 IN ITA NO. 2/2017 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT TO BE HEARD INDEPENDENTLY AFRESH. TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE GRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in ITA No.2/2017. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that this court vide judgment dated 16.102.2020 passed in ITA no.3/2017 directed that the following substantial questions of law shall be dealt with while deciding ITA No.2/2017: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 12A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon'ble Court which has not reached finality even though the activities carried out by the assessee comes under amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1.74 Crores on account of lumpsum leasing charges received by asssessee even though the auditor has pointed out under statement of income to the tune of Rs.5.81 Crores by the assessee and, as such, claim of Rs.1.74 Crores is not substantiated by assessee with any materials? 3. However, it is submitted that while deciding ITA No.2/2017, the aforesaid substantial questions of law has not been answered. Learned counsel for the assessee was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual aspect. 4. In the light of the order dated 16.12.2020 passed in ITA No.3/2017, the aforesaid substantial questions of law ought to have been answered while deciding ITA No.2/2017. However, this court has not adverted to the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Therefore, the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in ITA No.2/2017 is recalled. In the result, ITA No.2/2017 is restored to file. Accordingly, review petition is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS