PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX - 7 vs. SRI S KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/160/2020HC KarnatakaKAHC01015089202025 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty granted to the revenue to revive it as prayed for by its counsel. The substantial question of law framed by the court was kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding. The court did not decide the merits of the Tribunal's order regarding the rejection of the miscellaneous application. The decision was based on the submissions concerning the tax effect and the relevant CBDT circulars, leading to the appeal being disposed of without a determination on the core issue.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 and the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur (collectively referred to as the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal challenges an order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bengaluru, in M.P.No.44/Bang/2019 (in ITA.No.2211/Bang/2016) for the assessment year 2008-09. The High Court admitted the appeal to consider a substantial question of law concerning the Tribunal's rejection of a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue to recall a quantum order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue to recall the quantum order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no material available on record from which the Tribunal could know the fact that there is a revenue audit objection without considering the statement of facts filed by the Assessing Officer stating that the issue in appeal had arisen out of RAP objection which was accepted by the Revenue. Assessee's contention: The appeal should not be entertained by the revenue as the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 Crores, citing CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which binds the revenue. Revenue's contention: The revenue sought liberty to revive the appeal if the matter falls within the exceptions provided under Circular No. 09/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39916-DB ITA No. 160 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.160 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

1.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI. S. KUMAR, CHIKKA RANGAPURA, RANGAPURA POST, TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201, PAN NO: AQIPK0572D. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27/09/2019 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.MP.NO.44/BANG/2019 IN ITA NO.2211/BANG/2016 (ANNEXURE- A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39916-DB ITA No. 160 of 2020

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sanmathi.E.I., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. M.Lava for respondent/assessee.

2.

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in M.P.No.44/Bang/2019 (in ITA.No.2211/Bang/2016) for the assessment year 2008-09.

3.

This

Court,

admitted the appeal on 04.11.2020 to consider the following substantial question of law:

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39916-DB ITA No. 160 of 2020

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue to recall the quantum order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no material available on record from which the Tribunal could know the fact that there is a revenue audit objection without considering the statement of facts filed by the Assessing Officer stating that the issue in appeal had arisen out of RAP objection which was accepted by the Revenue."

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39916-DB ITA No. 160 of 2020

the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

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 →