PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SRI M R KODANDARAM (HUF)

PDF · subscribers
WTA/21/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01033644201716 January 2020Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal, being an offshoot of the common order passed by the ITAT, also deserves to be dismissed. The Court referred to its previous order dated 24.10.2019 in WTA No.26/2017, where a similar appeal arising from the same common order of the ITAT was dismissed as not maintainable due to the monetary limits stipulated in Circular No.17 of 2019 and Circular No.5 of 2019. Following this precedent, the present appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) against an order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in WTA No.31/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2007-2008. This order was a common order passed in multiple appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue had previously filed an appeal (WTA No.26/2017) against the ITAT's order in WTA No.32/Bang/2014, which was also part of the common order. The High Court, by an order dated 24.10.2019, had dismissed WTA No.26/2017 as not maintainable due to prescribed monetary limits under Circular No.17 of 2019 and Circular No.5 of 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable in light of the High Court's previous order in WTA No.26/2017, which dismissed a related appeal as not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The Revenue argued that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits fixed in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 and Circular No.5 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal is not maintainable on these grounds. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent (assessee).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

27-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.21 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

1.

PR.COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

(APPEALS)-III,

BENGALURU.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.M.R.KODANDARAM (HUF) GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA BENGALURU – 560 054. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.M.LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 27-A OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED IN WTA NO.31/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN WTA No.31/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEALL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OFJUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA No.31/Bang/2014. Said order is a common order passed in WTA No.30/Bang/2014, WTA No.31/Bang/2014, WTA No.32/Bang/2014, WTA No.33/Bang/2014. Insofar as the order passed by the Tribunal in WTA No.32/Bang/2014, Revenue had come up in appeal in WTA No.26/2017. This Court, by order dated 24.10.2019 disposed of the said appeal as not

maintainable in view of monetary limits fixed in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The order passed by this Court in WTA No.26/2017 on 24.10.2019 reads as under:

“The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi and also in terms of the Circular No.5 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD)-(ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes.

2.

In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.”

In the light of aforesaid facts, the present appeal as already noticed herein above, being an off shoot of common order passed by ITAT, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable in view of aforestated order passed in WTA No.26/2017 dated 24.10.2019.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand consigned to records.

Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →