The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Pune v. M/S.patni Computer Systems Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2012 ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Pune ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Patni Computer Systems Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior counsel i/by Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar, Senior counsel with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 28[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In these appeals by the Revenue for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, following common question of law have been formulated for our consideration. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?” The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) passed an order under Section 263 on two issues, viz (i) with regard to deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) granted by the assessing officer; and (ii) in respect of the benefit made available by the assessing officer to the respondent – assessee under Section 80HHE of the Act. Both the aforesaid issues were subject matter of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 3.By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) passed under Section 263 of the Act by recording a finding that the issue of deduction under Section 10A of the Act as also under Section 80HHE of the Act was carried in appeal from the order of the assessing officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Thus, the impugned order holds that in view of explanation (c) to Section 263(1) of the Act, a matter which is a subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority, is not open to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4.In these circumstances, as the position in law is self-evident, we see no reason reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)