THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DODDANNA TRADERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/264/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01022307202202 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability. The Court noted that Circular No. 5/2024, issued under Section 265A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prescribes monetary limits for preferring appeals to the High Court. As the monetary value involved in this appeal (Rs. 8,79,619/-) was less than the prescribed limit of rupees one crore, the appeal was held to be not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were expressly left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (appellants) against an order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, in ITA No. 137/Bang/2021. The assessment year in question is 2013-2014. The ITAT had set aside an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The monetary value involved in the appeal was Rs. 8,79,619/-. Subsequently, Circular No. 5/2024, dated 15.03.2024, was issued under Section 265A of the Act, prescribing monetary limits for appeals to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that the conditions prescribed for passing order under section 263 of the Act are not satisfied when the CIT has given elaborate findings to demonstrate that the order passed by assessing authority was prejudicial as well as erroneous order? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing appeal preferred by assessee by setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act ignoring that assessing authority had not derived gross profits from unaccounted sales and purchases recorded in seized documents and assessing authority further failed to make proper enquiry before making additions? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessing authority was correct in determining the unaccented income on the basis of GP rate in disclosed transactions as per regular books of accounts ignoring findings of Commissioner of Income Tax? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT's order was perverse and that the assessing authority had failed to make proper enquiries and derive gross profits from unaccounted sales and purchases. They also contended that the ITAT erred in holding that the assessing authority correctly determined unaccepted income based on GP rates from disclosed transactions, ignoring the CIT's findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 263,Section 265A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU IN ITA

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35613-DB ITA No. 264 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND 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.264 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARANAGAR MYSURU - 570 008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S. DODDANNA TRADERS NO.16, 'B' BLOCK, APMC YARD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204 PAN- AAJFD 1646A …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G S NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35613-DB ITA No. 264 of 2022

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01/12/2021 PASSED IN ITA NO. 137/BANG/2021, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 137/BANG/2021 DATED 01/12/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU. III. TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35613-DB ITA No. 264 of 2022

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

This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') questioning the correctness or otherwise of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in ITA No.137/Bang/2021 dated 01.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (Annexure-C).

2.

The appeal was admitted on 02.08.2022 to examine the questions of law raised by the appellants which are extracted below:

1.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that the conditions prescribed for passing order under section 263 of the Act are not satisfied when the CIT has given elaborate findings to demonstrate that the order passed by assessing authority was prejudicial as well as erroneous order"?

2.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing appeal preferred by assessee by setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act ignoring that assessing authority had not derived gross profits from unaccounted sales and purchases recorded in seized documents and

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35613-DB ITA No. 264 of 2022

assessing authority further failed to make proper enquiry before making additions"?

3.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessing authority was correct in determining the unaccented income on the basis of GP rate in disclosed transactions as per regular books of accounts ignoring findings of Commissioner of Income Tax"?.

3.

This appeal was filed on 23.05.2022 and Monetary value involved is Rs.8,79,619/-. Subsequent to filing of the appeal, Circular bearing No.5/2024 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007- ITJ(PT.)] dated 15.3.2024 is issued under Section 265(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribing monetary limit and the exceptions to prefer an appeal before the High Court.

4.

In view of the above Circular, the above appeal would not be maintainable since monetary value involved in this appeal is less than rupees one crore. Therefore, the above appeal would not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.

- 5 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35613-DB ITA No. 264 of 2022

5.

In view of the above, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are kept open to be considered in an appropriate case.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SMJ

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 →