PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

WA/6812/2017HC KarnatakaKAHC01013557201725 November 2024Author: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH5 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the appellant had filed a memo stating that the writ appeal had become academic because the appellant had obtained all reliefs on merits before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The memo further stated that the revenue's appeals against the Tribunal's order were disposed of as being within monetary limits. The appellant requested that the writ appeal be treated as academic and disposed of, with the questions of law kept open. The respondents' counsel agreed with the contents of the memo. The Court agreed with the submission that the issue of which High Court decision the CIT(A) should have followed had become academic. The Court ordered accordingly, disposing of the appeal as having become infructuous. No specific finding was given on the legal issue raised.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Prathibha Jewellery House, filed a writ appeal challenging an order dated November 7, 2017, by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The Single Judge had directed the appellant to file appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) against an order dated February 11, 2015, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A)'s order pertained to assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) had erred by following a Chhattisgarh High Court decision instead of a binding Karnataka High Court decision. Subsequently, the appellant obtained relief on merits before the Tribunal, and revenue's appeals against the Tribunal's order were disposed of as being within monetary limits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have followed the binding judicial decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 210 (Kar.) or the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Trilok Singh Dhillon v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh), against which an SLP was dismissed. Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) erred by not following the Karnataka High Court's binding precedent. The learned Single Judge's direction to file appeals before the Tribunal was a procedural step. Revenue's contention: The revenue agreed with the appellant's memo stating the appeal had become academic.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 6812 OF 2017 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE, REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. S.N.SHARATH KUMAR, S/O SRI. S. NARASIMHULU CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NO.1/1, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, RICHMOND CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-11, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVIRAJ .Y.V AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.24646-24651/2015 DATED 07/11/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

At the outset, Sri. Dilip.M states, his name in the cause-list has been shown for the appellant, which is erroneous as he appears for respondents. Sri. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant agrees with the submission made by Sri. Dilip. For the purpose of record, we may state here that, the appeal was filed by Sri. M.Lava, Advocate.

Sri. Shankar has filed a memo dated 25.11.2024, which reads as under: “MEMO 1. The petitioner submits that this writ appeal was filed on 11.12.2017 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24646- 24651/2015 dated 07.11.2017. The appellant had, in the writ petition, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 11.02.2015 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) instead of following the binding judicial decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 210 (Kar.) followed decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Trilok Singh Dhillon v. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh), on which decision the SLP was dismissed. 3. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.11.2017 relegated the appellant to file appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the Tribunal has given relief on

the merits and the appeals filed by the revenue before this Hon'ble Court against the order of the Tribunal have disposed off as being within the monetary limits. 4. In the light of the above facts, this writ appeal becomes academic as appellant has obtained all reliefs on the merits of the matter as stated above. 5. The appellant therefore submits that the writ appeal may be treated as academic and disposed off with liberty to revive, if the occasion arises and further submits that the questions of law raised in this writ appeal may be kept open. 6. The petitioner prays this Hon'ble Court to pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Learned counsel for the respondents agree with the contents of the memo. According to Sri. Shankar, the issue whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’ for short] should have followed the judgment of this Court in C. Ramaiah Reddy -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2011) 339 ITR 210

(Kar.)] or the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Trilok Singh Dhillon -Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax [(2011) 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh)] (against which the SLP was dismissed) has become academic.

Sri. Shankar states, the issue be left open to be decided in a more appropriate case. We order accordingly.

In view of the memo, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IA No.1/2017 is disposed of as infructuous.

Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO)

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH)

PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →