THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI RAJA REDDY(HUF)

ITA/39/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01034595201908 April 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable because the monetary limit for such appeals was not met. The judgment explicitly states, 'As the monetary limit is below Rs.1 crore, the appeal is not maintainable.' Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this preliminary ground. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that the Revenue sought to formulate. The ratio decidendi is that appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are subject to monetary limits, and failure to meet these limits renders the appeal non-maintainable. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. The assessment year in question is 2009-2010. The Revenue sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer. The respondent in the appeal is Shri Raja Reddy (HUF). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court given the monetary limit prescribed for such appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the appeal should be allowed and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside, confirming the lower authorities' orders. The Revenue sought to formulate substantial questions of law. The Respondent (Shri Raja Reddy (HUF)) was represented by counsel, but no specific arguments from their side are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the case. The primary issue addressed by the High Court was the maintainability of the appeal based on the monetary threshold.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ITA NO.39/2019 BETWEEN

1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX, CIT(A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

2 . THE ASST. COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), PRESENT ADDRESS ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANAGALA, BENGLAURU 560 095. ...APPELLANTS

(By SRI : DILIP M, ADVOCATE FOR ARAVIND K V, ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRI RAJA REDDY(HUF) 641, I "D" MAIN, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGLAURU 560 071. PAN: AAFHR 9408G. ...RESPONDENT

(By SRI : S PARTHA SARATHI, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF

LAW, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASDIE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA.NO.147/BANG/2016, DATED 12.9.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BENGALURU. ETC.,

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

As the monetary limit is below Rs.1 crore, the appeal is not maintainable.

Resultantly, the appeal stands disposed of as not maintainable.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →