What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable based on a previous judgment of the same court which made CBDT instructions regarding appeal filing retrospective. Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court reverses the prior judgment.

The Revenue preferred an appeal challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The net tax effect of the appeal was between Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal given the tax effect and the retrospective application of CBDT instructions on appeal filing.

CIT vs Smt. Sabita Sharma | Karnataka High Court 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

I.T.A. NO.594/2007 A/W. I.T.A. NO.595/2007

BETWEEN :

The Commissioner of Income-tax,

Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Bangalore.

The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Income Tax Building, Mumbai. ...APPELLANTS (Common in both)

(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.)

AND :

Smt.Sabita Sharma, 662, 1st Main Road, Defence Colony, Indiranagar, Bangalore. …RESPONDENT (Common in both)

(By Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Adv.) . . . .

- 2 -

I.T.A. No.594/2007 is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.380/Bang/2004 dated 30.03.2007 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) , Mumbai in the interest of justice and equity.

I.T.A. No.595/2007 is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1199/Bang/2002 dated 30.03.2007 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1) , Mumbai in the interest of justice and equity.

These I.T.As. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

- 3 -

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.

The net tax effect, which is the subject matter of this appeal, is above Rs.4 lakhs and less than Rs.10 lakhs.

In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Another –vs- Ranka and Ranka reported in 2012(72) DTR (Kar) 270, wherein it was held that notwithstanding Clause 11 of CBDT Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9th February 2011, expressly providing that the instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011 and appeals filed earlier will be governed by contemporaneous instructions, the application of said instructions needs to be extended to appeals pending as on 9th February 2011. In other words, the said instruction was held to be retrospective. In view of the said instructions, this appeal preferred by the Revenue where the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs, is not

- 4 -

maintainable. However, it is submitted that the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of this Court before the Apex Court. Hence, in the event of the Apex Court reversing the said judgment, liberty is reserved to the Revenue to seek for revival of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. SABITA SHARMA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments