PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 1 TAX, V. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS

ITA/283/2016

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had ruled in favor of the assessee, M/S. GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., regarding the validity of an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Tribunal had held that the assessment order was non-est and null and void, a decision which the revenue challenged in this appeal. The main legal questions pertained to the applicability of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the implications of the merger of the assessee company with Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The High Court of Karnataka, after considering the submissions and the relevant legal provisions, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699028 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.439/2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA; K R PRADEEP
• Assessee Lawyers: SANMATHI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2010-11; Final order of assessment; Income Tax; Non-est; Null and void; Tax liability; Merged Company
• Section: 292B; 170(2); 260-A

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.283 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 TAX…, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2) BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD) PLOT NO.3, 3A & 4 KADUGODI INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE - 560 067 PAN: AAACG7655G ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT GIRIJA G.P. AND SRI K.R. PRADEEP FOR ADVOCATES) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.328/BANG/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED: 04.11.2015 BEARING IN ITA NO. 328/BANG/2015 FOR THE ASSESMENT YEAR 2010-11. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Girija G.P., learned counsel for the assessee has entered appearance through video conferencing. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2018 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the final order of assessment passed in the case of the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 in the name of GE 3 Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. is non-est or saved in terms of Section 292B of the Act? (b) \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the final order of assessment passed in the case of assessee for A.Y.2010-11 in the name of GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., is null and void when the merged company Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., contested the assessment proceedings without raising any objection regarding the validity of assessment proceeding in the name of GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., and is merged company Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., further liable to pay taxes as per Section 170(2) of the Act? 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have already been answered against the revenue in ITA No.439/2018 vide order dated 04.02.2021. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4 3. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV "