Karnataka High Court
M/S. Sasken Communication vs The Income Tax Officer on 2 September, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB
ITA No. 268 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.268 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
M/S. SASKEN COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
#139/25, DOMLUR RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560071.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.SHARATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
WARD 2(1), BENGALURU
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI S (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE A/W
Location: SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THE ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961,
ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22/03/2013 PASSED IN ITA
NO.898/BANG/2012, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB
ITA No. 268 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
This appeal is by the Assessee challenging the order
dated 22.3.2013 in ITA.No.898/B/2012.
2. The appeal is filed raising the question of law
for consideration, which reads as follows:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Honourable ITAT was right in
law in upholding the action of the Learned
Respondent in levying interest under Section
201(1A) of the IT Act?"
3. Sri. S.Sharath, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that the above stated question
of law is answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
(P.) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
reported in (2021) 432 ITR 471 (SC) and the said
question is answered in favour of the Assessee. In view of
the same, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB
4. Learned counsel Sri. Ravi Raj.Y.V., along with
learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., for the respondent-Revenue
is not in a position to dispute the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant.
5. Taking note of the above, in terms of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
(P.) LTD. (supra), we answer the above question of law in
favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
6. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit
that the Revenue has preferred Review Petition before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.Nos.1422-1497/2021 praying to
review the order passed in the case of ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (P.) LTD. (supra)
and prays for liberty to file review in case the Revenue
succeeds before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the other
hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
place reliance on the decision in the case of
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. GRACEMAC
NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB
CORPORATION reported in (2023) 456 ITR 135 (SC)
to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
there must be an end to litigation otherwise, the rights of
persons would be in an endless confusion and fluidity and
justice would suffer.
7. Learned counsel for the Revenue is seeking
liberty to file review petition depending upon the outcome
of the review pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
apparently because of the observation made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 in
GRACEMAC CORPORATION case (supra).
8. We have gone through the above decision and
deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the respondent-
Revenue to file review petition based on the outcome of
the review pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is
for the respondent-Revenue to make out a case for
review.
NC: 2024:KHC:35618-DB
Accordingly, appeal is allowed; question of law is
answered in favour of the Assessee and against the
Revenue and the order dated 22.3.2013 in
ITA.No.898/B/2012 is quashed to the above extent.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SMJ
