THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI S L BASAVARAJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA/380/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01027346200725 September 2013Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The court considered the CBDT instruction and Section 268A of the Act, which govern the maintainability of appeals based on tax effect.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified by CBDT Instruction No. 2/2005 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect and the provisions of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

I.T.A.NO.380/2007

BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, 284/1, Park View Bldg., 4th Main, P.J.Extn.,

Davangere-2.

2.

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Shimoga.

…APPELLANTS

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

AND:

Sri.S.L.Basavaraj, Proprietor, Laxmi Wine Stores, Durgigudi, Shimoga.

...RESPONDENT

(By Sri.K.K.Chythanya, Adv.)

This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 22.09.2006 passed in MP No.72/Bang/06 dated 19.10.06 in ITA

- 2 - No.3170/Bang/2004 for the Assessment year 2001-02 praying to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, in MP No.72/Bang/2006 dated 19.10.06 in ITA No.3170/Bang/2004 dated 02.03.2005 and confirm the order passed by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice and equity.

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J, delivered the following:-

PC:

Learned Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, invited our attention to Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax, to submit that since the tax effect, in the present case, does not exceed Rs.4,00,000/-, this appeal is not maintainable. In support, he also invited our attention to Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

2.

Having confronted with this, Mr.Arvind, learned Counsel for the revenue could not and did not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

- 3 -

3.

In view thereof and considering the Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 read with Section 268A of the Act, we dispose of the appeal as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →