Wp/37311/2013 Of Infosys Bpo Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH $$WP NOS.37311/2013 & 38/7038708/2013 (TIT) BETWEEN: INFOSYS BPO LIMITED|BUILDING NO.48, 4 FLOORNO.26/3, 26/4 AND 26/6ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD.BANGALORE 560 100REPRESENTED HEREIN |BY ITS HEAD-BUSINESS FINANCE |MR,.SURESH NAMBIAR. PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSELFOR SMT.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR AND |SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATES) AND: 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)|WARD 2(1), 6 FLOORR.P.BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE 560 OO1 2DTHE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)| 6 FLOOR, R.P.BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE 560 OOLBANGALORE 560 OOL .., RESPONDENTS| (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE|INTIMATIONS DT.7.3.2012 (ANNX-A-1 AND A-2) ISSUED BY THE -?7) R-1 U/S 200A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR|2011-12 ARE APPEALABLE ORDERS U/S 246A OF THE ACT. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR’ PRELIMINARYHEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral& 1.These writ petitions are directed against the order dated30.05.2013 (Annexure-E) passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-IV, Bengaluru to the extent it hasdismissed the petitioner’s appeals in ITA Nos.11-14/Intl. Txn./2012-13 as not maintainable in law. 2 I have heard Sri K.P.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel|appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3.Learned Senior Counsel submits that, on the facts of the|case, the Appellate Authority has erred in law In dismissing tneaforesaid appeals on the ground of maintainability. LearnedStanding Counsel, however, supports the order of theAppellate Authority. 4.As could be seen from the impugned order, the|Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals on the ground WP Nos.37311/2013& 38706-38/08/2013 that when the appeals were filed in April 2012, there was no.statutory remedy of appeal provided against an intimation sent|under Section 200A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act’.for short). h.However, by amending Section 246A of the Act by)Finance Act, 2012, a remedy of appeal is provided against anintimation under Section 200A(1) of the Act with effect from.01.07.2012. It is fairly not disputed by the learned Standing|Counsel for the respondents that if the appeals had been filed.on or after 01.07.2012, the appeals were maintainable.|Accordingly, as on the date of consideration of the appeals, the.appeals were maintainable. It is stated that the appeals in.question were filed on 11.04.2012. If the petitioner had filed.these appeals after 01.07.2012, the appeals could not have)been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The only.additional thing the petitioner should have done was to apply.for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals. Hence, in my|opinion, on the facts of this case and in the interest of justice,the Appellate Authority ought to have examined the appeals.on merits by treating them as Naving been filed on 01.07.2012.and by condoning the delay, if any. 6.In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside| and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration of the appeals on merits without going into the question of maintainability. KSR. Petitions disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE