PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/s Keshava Rao and Associates

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/347/2018HC TelanganaHBHC01030091201802 August 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which, by amending Circular No. 3/2019, set the monetary limit for filing an appeal to the High Court at Rs. 1.00 crore. The present appeal, filed by the Revenue, was below this prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of not meeting the monetary threshold for filing appeals to the High Court. The Court also noted that it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. No order was passed as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench 'A'. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2006-2007. The ITAT's order, dated 22.11.2017, was challenged. This order was a consequence of an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Hyderabad, which in turn was preferred against the order of the Income Tax Officer, W-8(3), Hyderabad. The respondent is M/s Keshava Rao and Associates. The High Court noted that the CBDT had issued Circular No. 17/2019, amending Circular No. 3/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1.00 crore. The appeal filed by the Revenue was below this monetary limit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the High Court, given the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars for filing appeals. The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the ITAT Act. They did not explicitly argue on the maintainability based on monetary limits but proceeded with the appeal. The Respondent (M/s Keshava Rao and Associates) did not appear before the Court, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry NCOME TAX TRIBUNA L APPEAL NO: 347 OF 2018 (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.204lHYDl2O17 , for assessment Year 2006-2007, dated 22.11.2017 , preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-2, Hyderabad, ITA No.0362/2013-14 dated 03.11.2016, preferred against the Order of the lncome tax Officer, W-8(3), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. AAS|FKO849B, dated 06-12-2013.) Between: Pr. Commissioner of income tax-2, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/R3 AND M/s Keshava Rao and Associates, Plot No.155, Kolhaguda Mail Road, Opp Harsha Toyota Show Room, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084 ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Counsel for the Appellant :Ms. K. MAMATA Counsel for the Respondent :NONE APPEARED The Court made the following:

, .HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAI\I KOSH T AND T]|II T]ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXM] NAR{\'ANA I.T.T.A. No. 347 of 20t8 r[9_DqIt4E!fT:/i, t , t t t'L i, .ttL:;tLce p.sAM KosHy) ili l d ri: K.-\,Ianri la. lcar-lcrl Senjor Stalclirrg (JoL l ;r I appe:ring ftrr the aprpell, n t LJcnch ll lOl'' 1 r:-:rt'.1 '\', tlrrt a t:i,l 6 2. -lhrs :r1rl, ,d undcr been ltrcli rrt I 1;r tht Section ll6()A of the Inc )m,t Ti,. \r.t. I961. hrrs Ilt'rcntrc as the appcl ani irrlillr: t thc oral(,r rhr Incornr 'lar Appr.!l; tc Tr lr.rrrrr t1)rler:Lbirri L'l t\.No.-?0.1/l-Iydl2017 br thc \ss(,s:;meDr ycar d1 .l ir II 2006-07 .l (-cit :irl i ra.cl l)t )r,..t T.txr,s lCBDT) hus isslred i. , cirlar \,. l7 ,tf 20 l9 dt.U3.0l. tC 19, arnt,nclir-rg th<, previous Circuk.r \r,.3 oj. 20lg dt. I i.07.20 18, I ; fur-tl-rcr. t.trhancing Lhe monetitrv limitr; 1,.. ilrng appcals l)i ilr.. I,('')=r( I Lr Ilcr.rr, rrar-r.rL i)('l-)r('tlre Incomr: r'.r,\rIt.:ri:1c T.ilar.ils iliqh Cour li ;l I ijupr( llr. Clout-r ils .1 []eztsllr(. fcr rerltl lq litigtttio;r Itl parauraph -) lri said ('i'r:ular, ,,,. t. Ilnd that thc m()neL r_\ lr'tiL fired f,r filtng arl a1;pcirl i :f trt-' thr tligh Court is Rs.l.00 r:ro-e. 4 irr ll r' ! .i I L irpl)1 ;rl tari clli.ct rs rr,,ell br.ftr,,v lllc nt( tr(,t;ll \ limit 'l'!rcr L lr, Lr e 1pl)( i1l ,r1cd :_r,1 rltc l)eparrnrr.nt ,s ciisi : ssr c1 rn Lcrnts ol- 1l-rc rrlo'.csirirl (. 1 .:l la.N. I - of r20 l(l (ir.0g.0g.2cr l(_ Ir(irL, t.,.. rf rhe aPp.ai Cr.rtlri:s rrillrr, rr r'\c.[rtir,| urrrk,, 1r;r,.rgr.;L1.rh l(),rl ]ir.,r_.Lrr \,,,.l ol lOlt3. rr

2 would be open to the Income Ta-x Department to secl( revival o[ the appeal No order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitrons pcndrng, if any, shall stand 6 closed To, DL //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOTNISEGISTRAR C1D sEcr;N oFFtcER 1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' A ', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-2, Hyderabad 3. The lncome tax Officer, W-8(3)' Hyderabad 4. One CC to Ms. K. MAMATA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies J

t I HIGH COURT DATED:02/08,12( i2i JUDGMENT ITTA.No.347 ol i 0'8 /,,,l' t';' tl .) l:) i-- ''l'^ \\t. .(l 'i3\l6- z a Ai]I 2023 '2 c DISMISSIN(i TI II AI'PEAI <-' v9 2 L)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →