PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI. H.S. ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. The Court found that the appeal was not maintainable as per the prevailing monetary limits and the CBDT Circular.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court against an ITAT order. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable. This was based on monetary limits and a CBDT Circular.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court based on monetary limits and administrative instructions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.510 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6
BMTC COMPLEX
KORMANGALA
BENGALURU.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)
BENGALURU.
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.H.S.ABDUL HAFEEZ SAYEED PROPRIETOR: M/S.ORIENTAL GRANITES NO.6410, A-1-HABEED SHANKARMUTT ROAD
HASSAN PAN: AELPS 6817 A
…RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.41/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.41/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
*****
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits and also in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi.
In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE
Prs*
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026