- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 1619 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. BIESSE INDIA PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BIESSE MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD.,) (REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI PRASHANTH K V AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O SRI K B VIRUPAKSHAIAH) SY. NO.32, NO. 469, JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, SONDEKAPPA ROAD, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562123. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. TATA KRISHNA, ADV. FOR C/R1) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16223/2023 DATED 05/02/2024 AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS. 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 K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND) The revenue has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16223/2023 dated 05.02.2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, engaged in manufacturing and trading of wood working machine, components and related services. The assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2012 for the Assessment Year - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 2012-13. The assessment came to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on 31.01.2017 and demand notice under Section 156 of the Act came to be issued. The assessee aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (for short “Tribunal”). The Tribunal, by order dated 07.07.2017, while allowing the appeal partly, directed the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to recompute the Arms Length Price by excluding five companies selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Miscellaneous Petition preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal came to be rejected on 15.12.2017. The further appeal in ITA No.851/2017 came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 29.01.2021. The assessee filed an application on 01.12.2022 seeking refund of tax for the assessment year 2012-13 along with interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act. As the refund application was not considered, the assessee preferred a writ petition before this Court, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 seeking mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to grant refund of Rs.4,73,27,390/-. 3. The revenue passed order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 07.07.2017 determining the refund. The assessee contended that as the order giving effect is passed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act, he is entitled for additional interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act. The learned Single Judge accepting the contention of the assessee set aside the order giving effect dated 23.08.2023 as time barred and directed grant of refund of Rs.4,73,27,390/- and interest under Section 244A(1)(b) and Section 244A(1A) of the Act. 4. Sri.Y.V.Raviraj, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue submits that the assessment year involved is 2012-13. In view of sub- Section (9) of Section 153 of the Act, order giving effect is governed by time limit as prescribed prior to the amendment. It is his submission that in view of sub- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 clause (2) to sub-Section (3) to Section 153 of the Act that the order giving effect can be made at any time. Hence, it is submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order giving effect at Annexure-P dated 23.08.2023 holding it as time barred is incorrect. 5. Per contra, Sri.Tata Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee submits that the order of assessment, subject matter of the writ petition was passed on 31.01.2017 though for the assessment year 2012-13, the provisions of sub-Section (9) to Section 153 of the Act are attracted. Learned counsel submits that as per sub-Section (9), the provisions as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable insofar as assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before 1st June, 2016. It is submitted that as the assessment in question is passed on 31.07.2017, sub-Section (9) is not applicable as the provisions of post Finance Act, 2016 are applicable. It is submitted that in view of sub-Section (5) of Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 153 of the Act, the order giving effect ought to have been passed, within three months from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ appeal papers. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is, applicability of the provisions of Section 153(3)(ii) as they stood before amendment by the Finance Act, 2016 or Section 153(5) of the Act after amendment. The only issue raised by the revenue is that the provisions as amended by Finance Act, 2016 are not applicable and the time limit is governed by the provisions as existed before the Finance Act, 2016 coming into force. The contention of the revenue cannot be accepted for the following reasons: Sub-section (9) of Section 153 of the Act provides that the assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016 is governed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 provisions as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016. In this case, the order of assessment has been passed on 31.01.2017. Hence, the exception under sub-Section (9) of Section 153 of the Act to inapplicability of the Finance Act, 2016 is not applicable in the present case. When once it is held that sub-Section (9) to Section 153 of the Act is not applicable, the applicability of other provisions has to be seen. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, as per sub-section (5) to section 153 of the Act, the order giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal ought to have been passed, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. In the present case, the order giving effect has been passed on 23.08.2023 beyond the time limit of 3 months as provided under sub-Section (5) to Section 153 of the Act. The learned Single Judge by examining the legal provisions on the time limit to pass orders giving effect to the directions of the Tribunal is justified in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30290-DB WA No. 1619 of 2024 declaring the order giving effect dated 23.08.2023 at Annexure-P as time barred. The other reliefs being consequential, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43