CIT vs S Muddukrishna | Karnataka High Court 2013

- - - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.350 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, C.R. Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), C. R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore.

.. APPELLANTS

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

AND:

Mr. S. Muddukrishna, Prop: Mysolite Products, C-12, Veerasandra Industrial Estate, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 002 ..RESPONDENT

(By Sri.A. Shankar, Adv.)

- - - 2 - This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 28-09-2006 passed in ITA No. 14/BANG/2006 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

i. formulate the substantial questions of law sated therein,

ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.14/BANG/2006 dated 28- 09-2006 confirming the order of passed by the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.

This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, KUMAR J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

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 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

- - - 3 - 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 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

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S MUDDUKRISHNA