PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI P M A RAZAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/21/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01032443201831 October 2019Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court based on the monetary limits specified in the relevant CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

ITA NO.21 OF 2018 BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL), BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI P.M.A.RAZAK HC-12, HIS GRACE APARTMENTS MARTIN PAES ROAD HAT HILL,

MANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 31/08/2017 PASSED IN ITA.NO.1150/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, PRAYING TO i) 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, ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:31/08/2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1150/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

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.

2.

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

Sd/-

Sd/-

JUDGE

JUDGE

JT/-

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →