Rp/518/2023 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Cerner Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Digitally signed byMALA K NLocation: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA NC: 2025:KHC:4099-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA R.P. NO.518 OF 2023IN I.T.A. NO. 429 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095 5 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095 … PETITIONERS CIRCLE-2(1)(1), 2 FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 095 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. GROUND FLOOR, WING B BLOCK H2, MOUNTAIN ASH MANYATA EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK NAGAWARA, BENGALURU - 560 045 PAN - … RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ITA NO.429/2023 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGALAND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) The Revenue has filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in I.T.A.No.429/2023. 2. The Revenue has filed I.T.A.No.429/2023 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in IT(TP)A No.217/BANG/2020 dated 14.07.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14, which confirms the order of the Appellate Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Bengaluru. 3. When the matter was taken up before this Court on 12.09.2023 on the first hearing, submission was made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the issue in dispute has been decided by this Court in the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another -vs- M.G.Anand Reddy in I.T.A.No.110/2023 on 18.07.2023. Recording the said submission, without issuing notice to the assessee, the appeal came to be dismissed and the question of law framed by the Revenue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Now the Revenue is seeking review of the said order stating that the judgment in Anand Reddy (supra) is not applicable to this case; the said judgment is applicable only in a case of miscellaneous petition and by oversight, such submission was made under the impression that the order impugned was on a miscellaneous petition. 4. We have heard the arguments of Sri.M.Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 5. There is no dispute as to the Revenue filing the appeal challenging the order impugned. When the matter came up for the first time before the Court, a submission was made that in view of the judgment in Anand Reddy, the issue was covered and it has to be answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, without considering the merits of the case and even without issuing notice to the assessee, this Court passed the order on 12.09.2023. 4. We have heard the arguments of Sri.M.Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 5. There is no dispute as to the Revenue filing the appeal challenging the order impugned. When the matter came up for the first time before the Court, a submission was made that in view of the judgment in Anand Reddy, the issue was covered and it has to be answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, without considering the merits of the case and even without issuing notice to the assessee, this Court passed the order on 12.09.2023. 6. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that huge matters were listed on 12.09.2023, due to heavy rush, under the misconception that the order impugned is a miscellaneous order, he submitted that same has been covered in Anand Reddy's case. We have also perused the order impugned. It is not an order on miscellaneous petition, substantial question of law had been stated by the Revenue on the appeal memo. The submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Revenue is a mistake and the matter requires consideration on merits. Since the Assessee was not at all notified in the appeal, the order dated 12.09.2023 requires to be recalled and the matter has to be heard on merits. Hence, we pass the following; NC: 2025:KHC:4099-DBRP No. 518 of 2023 ORDER (i) The Review Petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 12.09.2023 is recalled; (iii) The matter is restored to file to the stage it was disposed of on 12.09.2023. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3