THE PR. COMMISSIONER vs. M/S. L & T VALDEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/720/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01043449201524 October 2019Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) themselves, stating that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The circular likely stipulates a threshold amount below which appeals should not be filed or pursued by the revenue. Since the revenue conceded to the non-maintainability based on this circular, the High Court found no reason to proceed with the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the revenue must adhere to the monetary limits set by CBDT circulars, and if the revenue itself acknowledges non-compliance, the appeal will be dismissed on that ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s. L&T Valdel Engineering Private Limited. The assessment year in question is 2009-2010. The appeal challenges an order dated June 29, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru Bench, in ITA No. 519/Bang/2014. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history leading to this appeal involves the ITAT's order which is now under challenge before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director (ITJ), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The revenue contended that the appeal is not maintainable due to the monetary limits specified in the aforementioned circular. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding the maintainability of the appeal or any substantive issues related to the assessment year. The primary focus of the High Court's decision was on the preliminary submission made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.720 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), MANGALURU. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND: M/S. L&T VALDEL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED NO.19, SHRUTH COMPLEX, PRIMROSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.519/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND

2 / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.519/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.

***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi.

2.

In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.

Sd/-

Sd/- JUDGE

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →