THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S T N NARENDRA REDDY AND ASSOCIATES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/312/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01029468200727 January 2014Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. The decision was based on the submission made by the respondent's counsel, who pointed to Instruction No. 2/2005 issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. This instruction likely specifies monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in the present case did not exceed Rs. 4,00,000/-, as stated by the respondent, the appeal was deemed not maintainable. The Revenue's counsel did not contest this point. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore. The ITAT's order, dated 22.09.2006 in ITA No.2779/Bang/2004, had confirmed an order of the Appellate Commissioner, which in turn had presumably modified an order of the Assistant Commissioner. The respondent in this appeal is M/s. T.N. Narendra Reddy & Associates. The present appeal before the High Court of Karnataka was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable. The Revenue sought to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order. The Respondent (assessee) contended that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in Instruction No. 2/2005 dated 24.10.2005, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, did not dispute this submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A. No.312/2007

BETWEEN :

1.

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.

The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 9(1), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. …APPELLANTS

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.)

AND :

M/s. T.N.Narendra Reddy & Associates, No.1/11, Ulsoor Road, W.H. Hanumanthappa Layout, Bangalore – 42. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Adv.)

. . . .

- 2 -

This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.2779/Bang/2004 dated 22.09.2006confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), Bangalore in the interest o justice and equity.

This I.T.A. coming on for hearing, this day, Dilip B.Bhosale, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

PC:

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, to submit that since the tax effect, in the present case does not exceed Rs.4,00,000/-, this appeal is not maintainable.

2.

Having confronted with this, Mr.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue did not

- 3 -

dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

In view thereof and considering Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 read with Section 268A of the Act, we dispose of the appeal as not maintainable.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →