Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.173 OF 2013 IN ITA NO.544 OF 2008
BETWEEN :
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(TDS), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(TDS) RANGE-16(2)
NO.59, HMT BHAVAN
4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND :
M/S. ICE NETWORK (P) LTD., NO.647/10, BRINDAVAN COMPLEX RAJAJI NAGAR DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 010 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.)
2 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.544/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this case, when this Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue on the ground being less than the monetary limit, the said order was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has passed the following order:
“Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect.
For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.”
In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court order, this review petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the revenue submits that as the question involved in this petition is of recurring nature, it needs to be heard on merits and decided. What the Apex Court has said is, if any common principle is involved in the subsequent group of matters or large number of matters, then the case is to be decided on merits.
When this case is dismissed, the Court has not looked into the merits of the case. No law is laid down, it was dismissed only on the ground of monetary limits. If the very same principle is involved in the subsequent year or any subsequent group of matters or any large number of matters as pointed by the Apex Court, certainly dismissal of those appeals only on the ground of monetary limits would not come in the way of
4 this Court deciding the said common principle involved in any subsequent group of matters or any large number of matters. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to review the order. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE
SD/- JUDGE