The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Visakha Industries Ltd.,

ITTA/669/2006HC TelanganaHBHC01028978200609 August 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued Circular No. 17 of 2019, amending Circular No. 3 of 2019, to enhance the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals, High Courts, and Supreme Court as a measure to reduce litigation. Paragraph 20 of the said circular specifies that the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 1.00 crore. The Court observed that the subject matter of the present appeal was well below this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed in terms of the aforesaid circular. The Court also noted that if the appeal comes within the exceptions under paragraph 10 of Circular No. 3 of 2019, it would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Tribunal Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad (the Revenue) against the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B'. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2002-03 and arises from an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad, which in turn was preferred against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-3(4), Hyderabad. The respondent is Visakha Industries Ltd. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before this High Court, considering the monetary limits for filing appeals as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 and Circular No. 3 of 2019. (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the case. The judgment also does not record any arguments from the Respondent (Visakha Industries Ltd.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXMI NARAYANA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 669 of 2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B' Hyderabad, in ITA No.33/Hydl20O4, for Assessment Year 2002-03 dated 28-02- 2006 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax , (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 180/AC-3(4yClT(A)-lV/2003-04dated:14-11-2OO3, preferred against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome-Tax Circle- 3(4), Hyderabad, PAN No. AADCS4O12Q, GIR No.V-02l2002-03 dated 14-08-2003. Between: . The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lll, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND Visakha lndustries Ltd., 1-8-303/69/3, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J.V. PRASAD, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondent: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE }ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. LAXMI NARAYANA I.T.T .A. No.669 of 2O06 JUDGMENT:pe) H tL t)tt s,,,rjsr,l p.sAM KOSHr) Heard lr{r. IV Prrr:;ircl, lcrrrr-red Senior Standing (.ounsel appearing I I for the appeilalrt 2. This appeal trnrl'r S.r.1rr,r 160,4 of the lncome Tax Acr, t96i_ has been preferred I, v thc iierrt-rrtrt' as the appellant agiLinsr the ordcr dt.28.O'2.2OO6 pas;scd by rhi' income Tax Appellate l.ribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hvder:t.lacl. r, LT.{.\. 33lHydl2OOa for tho Assessment year 2002-03 3. Central B.t rcl o[ I)i.'r.r ]', rt s ICBDT) has issur.d Ci:c,la: No.17 of 20 l9 dt.08.08.2O 19. arnrcrrrlrrg the previous Circu lar No.3 of 2L) Ig dr. I 1.07.2018, bv iurthcr <:.1r..t.i,g the monetary limrts for filing appeats br thc- lncome Trr.r I)r,parrrnerrt ir,-.ii_,re tl,rc lncom., T.x Aplx:Uate Tribuna-ls. High Courts and iiuprcrnc CorLrt rrs a measure for reiiucrng litrgation. In pzrragraph 2 0f rl'rt said cir.rrlirr ric nnd that the monct:rrv timit rrxed for !-rling ar.r appcal bc[.rrc th(j Iliqlr r]oLrr-t rs Rs.1.OO crore. 4. ln the instirr r_ altpeal. tirx cll|c.f is v.,ell below tI.Lc rnonct€rrv limit 5' 'lher efore, rl-r: ap,r'irl rr.rr l^ rhc L)eparrment is drsmissed in terms.f tht: ;rfor.saicl r.li r< rr rrr N. I i ,i. l0 ic) dr.CS.,g.2Ol9. Hor,r:r.et_. if the appeal <:omcs $'ithin Lhc r':.t''-Pltorr Lrn(l'.r r)iir.lgriiph I0 of circ.rlirr No.3 of 201g. iL

2 would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek revival of the appeal' No order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shal1 stand 6 closed kam g sd/'c. v. MALLTKARJUN^KtxA / (-l!) //TRUE coPY/' aEcTtoN OFF|CER To, 1 . The lncometax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench ' B' Hyderabad' 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax ' (Appeals)-lV' Hyderabad' 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome-Tax Circle-3(4)' Hyderabad' 4. One CC to SRI J'V PRASAD' SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI C V NARASIIVIHAM' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910812023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.669 of 2006 ITTA IS DISMISSED s !i gt Stt .A SlATE OF ) )).,i. \. l-: I .,( cr o pl1

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →