Eit Services India Private vs Assistant Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 1825 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1825 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Eit Services India Private vs Assistant Commissioner on 24 March, 2021

Author: Alok Aradhe Kamal

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                 I.T.A. NO.118 OF 2017


BETWEEN:

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HEWLETT
PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD.)
39/40, ELECTRONIC CITY,
PHASE-II, HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 100
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
DIRECTOR, MR. M.S. PRAKASH
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY MS.MAHIMA GOUD, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE
       3(1)(2)(ERSTWHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       OF INCOME-TAX-CIRCLE
       11(4), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
       80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK
       BANGALORE-560 095.
                              2



2.   PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
     OF INCOME TAX-3
     BMTC BUILDING,
     KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK,
     BANGALORE-560 095.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K.V.ARVIND, ADVOCATE)

                          ---
     THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME
TAX APPEAL ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER
DATED:17/10/2016         PASSED      IN        IT(TP)A
NO.1211/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-
2005 ANNEXURE-K PRAYING TO (i) FORMULATE THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE (ii)
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
TRIBUNAL    DATED:17/10/2016    PASSED   IN    IT(TP)A
NO.1211(BANG)2012 (ANNEXURE-K), TO THE EXTENT
QUESTIONED HEREIN; AND (iii) PASS SUCH OTHER OR
SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
PASS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Ms.Mahima Goud, learned counsel for Shri

T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee.

Shri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for Shri

K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee against the order

dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal.

2. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court

by order dated 14.11.2017 on the following substantial

questions of law:

            "Whether            on     the       facts,        in   the
      circumstances        and       on      the     grounds        and
      contentions urged:

(i) the Tribunal was justified in holding that only issues arising out of order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act can be appealed against before the Tribunal in the proceedings arising out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act pursuant to such order under Section 263 of the Act, although the CIT(A) himself had dismissed the appeal against the original assessment order as being infructuous for the reason that the CIT had set aside the assessment order to make a fresh assessment?

(ii) the Tribunal was justified in not adjudicating on the correctness or otherwise of

setting off of loss of a Unit eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act against the profits of other Units entitled for a similar deduction under Section 10A of the Act?

(iii) The Tribunal ought to have remanded the entire matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration of all the issues arising both from the original assessment order as well as from the order giving effect to the order passed under Section 263 of the Act?"

3. When the matter was taken up today, learned

counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial

questions of law namely substantial question Nos.(i) and (iii)

have been rendered academic on account of efflux of time.

It is further submitted that the second substantial question of

law namely substantial question No.(ii) has been answered in

favour of the assessee by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs.

Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in (2017) 77

taxmann.com 41 (SC).

4. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been

disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.