Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Karnataka Industrial Areas ... on 16 June, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20903-DB
RP No.183 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E)
RUPA V CIRCLE17(1), BENGALURU.
Location: ...PETITIONERS
High Court
of Karnataka (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:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20903-DB
RP No.183 of 2022
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?
NC: 2023:KHC:20903-DB
RP No.183 of 2022
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
