THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SREE SHIVALINGESHWARA ARECANUT TRADERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/266/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01022290202202 September 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a subsequent circular prescribing a monetary limit of one crore rupees for appeals to the High Court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an ITAT order that set aside an order passed under Section 263. The appeal involved a monetary value of Rs. 29,29,383/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court based on the monetary limit prescribed by a subsequent circular. The substantial questions of law regarding the correctness of the ITAT's order were left open.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 263,Section 265(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 141/BANG/2021 DATED 07/12/2021

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35623-DB ITA No. 266 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.266 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. SREE SHIVALINGESHWARA ARECANUT TRADERS 21, L BLOCK, APMC YARD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204 PAN. AALFS 3372E …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G S NAGHARISH, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:35623-DB ITA No. 266 of 2022

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07/12/2021 PASSED IN ITA NO. 141/BANG/2021, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 AND 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. 141/BANG/2021 DATED 07/12/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 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 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:35623-DB ITA No. 266 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.141/Bang/2021 dated 07.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 (Annexure-C).

2.

The appeal was admitted on 06.09.2022 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:35623-DB ITA No. 266 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.29,29,383/-. 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:35623-DB ITA No. 266 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 →