THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAHAVEER SHOPPING COMPLEX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/694/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01031243200802 August 2014Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals are not maintainable. This decision is based on the Court's prior ruling in CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA, which declared Instruction No. 3/2011 to be retrospective. Consequently, appeals where the net tax effect is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs are covered by this notification and are therefore not maintainable. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that an appeal against the RANKA & RANKA decision is pending before the Supreme Court and that the Revenue has reserved the liberty to revive these appeals if successful there. With this observation, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The assessee in all appeals was M/s. Mahaveer Shopping Complex. The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT's order and confirm the orders of the lower authorities (Appellate Commissioner and Income Tax Officer). The net tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 10 Lakhs. The High Court had previously held in CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA that Instruction No. 3/2011 is retrospective, making appeals with a net tax effect below Rs. 10 Lakhs not maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable, given that the net tax effect is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs, in light of Instruction No. 3/2011 and the High Court's decision in CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA? The Revenue argued that the appeals are not maintainable because the net tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in Instruction No. 3/2011, as interpreted by this Court in CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA. The Revenue also submitted that they have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision in CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA and reserved the liberty to revive these appeals if they succeed in the Apex Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.693 OF 2008 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.694 OF 2008 AND 695 OF 2008

BETWEEN :

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD – 5(2), C.R.BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE

... APPELLANTS

(COMMON)

(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. IN ITA NO.693/2008 BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV. IN ITA NOS.694/08 & 695/08)

AND :

M/s. MAHAVEER SHOPPING COMPLEX NO.13, BVK IYENGAR ROAD BANGALORE

... RESPONDENT

(COMMON)

(BY SRI.D.N.MANJUNATH, ADV. IN ITA NO.693/2008 BY SRI.A.SHANKAR AND SRI.M.LAVA, ADVS. IN ITA NOS.694/08 AND 695/08) ---

2 These appeals are filed under Section 260A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.1.2008 passed in ITA Nos.247/BNG/2007, 246/BNG/2007 and 245/BNG/2007, respectively for the assessment years 2001-02, 2000-01 and 1999-00, respectively praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, allow the appeals and set aside the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.247/BNG/2007, 246/BNG/2007 and 245/BNG/2007, respectively confirm the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Bangalore.

These appeals coming on for Hearing this day, N.KUMAR J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

All these appeals are preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, where the assessee is common.

2.

The net tax effect in these appeals is less than Rs.10 Lakhs. This Court while interpreting Instruction No.3/2011 in I.T.A. No.3191/2005 disposed of on 02.11.2011 (CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA), held that it is retrospective in nature and therefore, the appeals filed where the net tax effect is less than Rs.10 Lakhs are covered under the Notification and as such, it is not

3 maintainable. Accordingly, these appeals are also not maintainable.

3.

It is submitted that against the said order of this Court in the case referred supra (I.T.A. No.3191/2005), the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and it is still pending. In the event of the Revenue succeeding in the Apex Court, they are reserved the liberty to revive these appeals. With the said observation, these appeals are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE RV

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →