Infosys BPO Limited V. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) Ward 2(1) and The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)

WP/37311/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Infosys BPO Limited, which filed writ petitions against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Bengaluru. The appeals were initially dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability because, at the time of filing (April 2012), there was no statutory remedy against an intimation under Section 200A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, an amendment to Section 246A by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from July 1, 2012, provided such a remedy. The court found that the appeals should have been considered maintainable as of the date of the amendment, and thus, the Appellate Authority should have examined them on merits, potentially condoning any delay in filing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794124 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K P KUMAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; International Taxation; Maintainability
• Section: 200A; 246A

Judgement Text

" WP Nos.37311/2013 & 38706-38708/2013 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WP NOS.37311/2013 & 38706-38708/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: INFOSYS BPO LIMITED BUILDING NO.48, 4TH FLOOR NO.26/3, 26/4 AND 26/6 ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 100 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS HEAD-BUSINESS FINANCE MR.SURESH NAMBIAR ... PETITIONER (BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR AND SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 2(1), 6TH FLOOR R.P.BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 6TH FLOOR, R.P.BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE INTIMATIONS DT.7.3.2012 (ANNX-A-1 AND A-2) ISSUED BY THE WP Nos.37311/2013 & 38706-38708/2013 - 2 - 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): 1. These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure-E) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Bengaluru to the extent it has dismissed 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, learned Standing 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 the aforesaid appeals on the ground of maintainability. Learned Standing Counsel, however, supports the order of the Appellate Authority. 4. As could be seen from the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals on the ground WP Nos.37311/2013 & 38706-38708/2013 - 3 - 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). 5. However, by amending Section 246A of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, a remedy of appeal is provided against an intimation 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 having been filed on 01.07.2012 and by condoning the delay, if any. WP Nos.37311/2013 & 38706-38708/2013 - 4 - 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. Petitions disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KSR "