Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
REVIEW PETITION NO.103 OF 2013 IN ITA NO.736 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
Commissioner of Income Tax No.55/1, Shilpashri, Vidyaranyapura Complex, Vishveshwarapuram, Mysore.
The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -1, Mysore. …PETITIONERS
(By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate)
AND:
M/s.Habib Agro Industries,
2 PB.No.155, Boothana Hosadurga, Mandya. …RESPONDENT
*****
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying to review the order dated 21.3.2012 passed in ITA.No.736/2009.
This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:-
ORDER
This review petition is filed to review the order dated 21.03.2012 in I.T.A. No.736/2009.
Following the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Ranka and Ranka in ITA No.3191/2005, decided on 2.11.2011, we had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition, with an observation that the appellant should bring it to the notice of this court the Clause-11
3 of the Circular No.3/2011, dated 09.02.2011, and therefore this review petition is filed.
In the case of the Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Ranka and Ranka in ITA No.3191/2005, this Court had an occasion to consider Clause-11 of the Circular dated 09.02.2011, wherein the Revenue contended that it is only prospective. After considering this contention and following several judgments including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have held that the circular is retrospective in operation. Therefore, the question of again considering Clause-11 of the circular dated 09.02.2011 would not arise. The aforesaid judgment fully covers this case. Hence, we do not see any justification to review our earlier order.
4 3. However, in all such cases we have reserved liberty to the Revenue to seek for revival of the appeal in the event they succeed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such a liberty is not reserved to the Revenue in this appeal. Under these circumstances, we reserve such a liberty. To that extent, the review petition is allowed.
The application filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE