THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S.ACUITY KNOWLEDGE

ITA/138/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an Income Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s. Acuity Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal sought to set aside the order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner which upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision. The core issue was whether the department could file multiple appeals against the same order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal's earlier decision had established that the department could not file a fresh appeal after more than two years, especially when the ITAT did not grant liberty to file a fresh appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 734786 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT-IV. Kolkata
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR
• Assessee Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ; DILIP
• Keywords: Doctrine of Merger; Estoppel; Finality of order; Income tax appeal
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27142-DB ITA No. 138 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, STANDING COUNSEL A/W SRI. DILIP M, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ACUITY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MOODY'S ANALYTICS KNOWLEDGE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,) ELIXIR CHANCERY BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR, MUNICIPAL DOOR, NO. 135/1-2, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025, PAN NO. AAECA 9391H. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAI DHUNGAT ANKUR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27142-DB ITA No. 138 of 2024 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01.11.2023 PASSED IN MP NO.184/BANG/2023 (IN ITA NO.1065/BANG/2022), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 2013 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN M.P.NO.184/BANG/2023 DATED 01.11.2023 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal has the following prayer: \"…set aside the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in M.P.No.184/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.1065/Bang/2022) dated 01.11.2023 for Assessment year 2012-2013 Annexure-A and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru.\" 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee draws attention of the Court to paragraph No.5 of the order of the Tribunal entered in ITA No.1065/Bang/2022 for the Assessment - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27142-DB ITA No. 138 of 2024 Year 2012-13 and contends that in view of following therein, this appeal is not maintainable: 5. Be it as it may, the question is whether the department is permitted to file two appeals on the same order of the CIT(A). An assessee or Revenue ought not to be allowed to file multiple appeals from same order of CIT(A). There ought to be finality of an order. When Revenue has filed appeal at the first instance and omitted to raise ground, the Revenue cannot be permitted to file a fresh appeal after a span of more than two years (especially when the ITAT did not grant liberty to Revenue to file fresh appeal). According to us, the doctrine of merger applies on the facts of the instance case. In other words, the order of CIT(A) had merged with the order of the Tribunal dated 14.02.2020 and Revenue is estopped from challenging the CIT(A)'s order again on some new issues when those issues were not taken in the first round of litigation. On identical facts, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd.. Vs. CIT-IV. Kolkata, reported in 42 taxmann.com 199 (Calcutta) had held as follows: \"8. Thus it is clear that from 2003 till 2008 no action was taken to ***** the other portion of the impugned judgment and order . The matter was pending before the learned Tribunal till 2004. By the act and conduct we ***** impugned judgment and order dated 28th November, 2003 has been merged with the final order dated 20th of December 2004 as rightly argued by Mr. Som. Indeed we think that petitioner is estopped from challenging the same when it was not challenged on any other grounds within the period of limitation. We think that even if the appeal is admitted by the order of the Court the question of entertainability will arise. Thus applying the doctrine of merger and also estoppel we hold that this appeal is not maintainable. Under the circumstances we do not think other arguments advanced on the merit of the case should be - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27142-DB ITA No. 138 of 2024 considered by this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.\" 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Assessee that in view of the Tribunal's version at paragraph No.5 of the order as indicated above, this appeal is not maintainable. Ordered accordingly. The Appeal is disposed off, costs having been made easy. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK "