COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MALPANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/202/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01057900201105 June 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's submission that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax impact being less than Rs. 1 Crore as per CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The assessee's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court based on the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.202/2011

BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BANGALORE.

2.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR MALPANI NO.45, INDUSTRY HOUSE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 23.02.2011 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO.36/BANG/2008,

FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 21.12.2002, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN (II) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 23.02.2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.IT(SS)A NO.36(BANG)/2008 DATED 23.02.2011 AS SOUGHT OF FOR IN THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGMENT

Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the appellants.

Smt. Jinita Chattergee on behalf of Sri S.Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable in view of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax bearing No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 as the tax impact is less than Rs.1 Crore.

3.

The aforesaid statement is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants.

4.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the revenue to revive the same as and when the occasion so arises.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →