- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 2102 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. 2. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BANGALORE, 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVI RAJ Y. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SCICOM CONTACT CENTRE SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED, No.24, NENAPU, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 GROUND FLOOR, 14TH CROSS, 2ND B MAIN ROAD, SOUNDARYA LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 073. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. ARIYANAYAKAM LEO SURESH, INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.4474/2024 DATED 21/08/2025. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Ravi Raj Y.V., learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This intra-court appeal is filed by the Revenue assailing the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.4474/2024. 3. In the case of the respondent–assessee, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) on 25.11.2008. The said assessment order was the subject matter of an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.173/Bang/2012. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.09.2016, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to exclude certain companies from the list of comparables. However, the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the order passed by the Tribunal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 3.1 The respondent preferred a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing refund of a sum of Rs.12,62,160/-, on the ground that no order giving effect to the decision of the Tribunal had been passed. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant–Revenue to refund the amount of Rs.12,62,160/- along with applicable interest within a period of twelve weeks. 4. Sri Ravi Raj Y.V., learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submits that the assessment year involved is 2005-06. He further submits that the provisions of Section 153 of the Income-tax Act were amended with effect from 01.06.2016 and that the pre-amended provisions of Section 153 are applicable to the present case. 4.1 Placing reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2016, learned counsel submits that an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, in the nature of reassessment or re- computation, could be passed at any time. It is contended that, for the assessment year 2005–06, no period of limitation was prescribed for passing an order giving effect to the order of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 Tribunal under Section 153 as it then stood. In support of the said submission, learned counsel places reliance on sub-section (9) of Section 153, as amended by the Finance Act, 2016. 5. Smt. Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent–assessee, submits that the order of remand was passed by the Tribunal on 16.09.2016. It is contended that the Assessing Officer has failed to give effect to the said order even after a lapse of ten years. Learned counsel submits that, even assuming that no period of limitation is prescribed, as contended by the Revenue, the order giving effect to the Tribunal’s decision ought to have been passed within a reasonable time. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the amendment to Section 153 of the Act came into force with effect from 01.06.2016, which is prior to the order of the Tribunal dated 16.09.2016, and therefore, the amended provision would be applicable, the amendment having been carried out by way of substitution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 5.2 Learned counsel further submits that the order giving effect to the decision of the Tribunal ought to have been passed within the time prescribed under Section 153(5) of the Act, or in any event, within the outer limit of limitation provided under Section 153(3) of the amended Section 153. It is further contended that sub-section (7) of Section 153 prescribes the limitation for matters pending prior to the amendment and, in terms thereof, the order giving effect ought to have been passed on or before 31.03.2017. 5.3 Answering the contentions of the Revenue with regard to the applicability of sub-section (9) of Section 153, learned counsel submits that the said contention does not represent the correct interpretation of the provision. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.68/2024, dt.06.08.2025. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 7. We note that the assessment order for the assessment year 2005–06 was passed on 25.11.2008 and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 said order was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.09.2016, directed the Assessing Officer to examine certain comparables. Prior to the passing of the Tribunal’s order, Section 153 of the Act underwent amendment by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.06.2016. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the limitation is governed by Section 153 as amended by the Finance Act, 2016, whereas learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the limitation provisions as they existed during the relevant assessment year are applicable. In view of the limited issue involved in the present matter, we are not inclined to examine the said rival contentions, having regard to the order that we propose to pass. 9. Even if the contention of the Revenue is accepted that the provisions of Section 153, as they stood prior to the amendment, are applicable to the present case, a delay of ten years, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered reasonable for passing an order giving effect to the directions - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3594-DB WA No. 2102 of 2025 issued by the Tribunal. On this ground alone, we hold that the contention of the Revenue is not acceptable. 10. In view of the above reasoning, we hold that the Revenue has not made out any ground to entertain the present appeal. The rival contentions raised by both parties with regard to the applicability of Section 153 of the Act, in the context of its amendment, are kept open to be considered in an appropriate case. 11. With the above observations, writ petition stands dismissed. The time granted by learned Single Judge for refund, is extended by another eight weeks from today. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11