ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. MANOJI J. TORGAL

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS INCOME TAX APPEAL No.6007/2010 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL No.6008/2010 ITA No.6007/2010: Between: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bijapur. … Appellant (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) And: Shri Manoji J. Torgal Shikarkhana Road, Bijapur. … Respondent (By Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, Advocate and Sri G.B. Yadav, Advocate)

Date of order: 26.03.2018 ITA 6007/2010 C/W ITA 6008/2010 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manoji J. Torgal 2 This Income Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, praying to allow this appeal and set aside the final order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A” in ITA No.154(BNG)/2010, wherein the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in ITA No.41/BJP/2008-09 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, is confirmed and pass appropriate orders. ITA No.6008/2010: Between: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bijapur. … Appellant (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) And: Shri Manoji J. Torgal Shikarkhana Road, Bijapur. … Respondent (By Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, Advocate and Sri G.B. Yadav, Advocate) This Income Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, praying to allow this appeal and set aside the final order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A” in ITA No.155(BNG)/2010, wherein the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in ITA No.42/BJP/2008-09 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, is confirmed and pass appropriate orders.

Date of order: 26.03.2018 ITA 6007/2010 C/W ITA 6008/2010 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manoji J. Torgal 3 These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, VINEET KOTHARI J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant-Revenue Mr. Ashok A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent-Assessee 1. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Assessee for Assessment Year 2001-2002. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had decided both the Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No.154(BNG)/2010 and ITA No.155(BNG)/2010 dismissing both the said appeals of Revenue vide order dated 22.07.2010. 2. The two issues arising in these appeals were about the deletion of the additions made by the Income Tax Officer under Section 43B of the Act in the hands of the Assessee and consequential imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act at the rate of 100% of the tax amount.

Date of order: 26.03.2018 ITA 6007/2010 C/W ITA 6008/2010 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manoji J. Torgal 4 3. The learned counsel for the respondent- Assessee has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these appeals and has furnished before us a tax computation showing that the “tax effect” involved in both these appeals filed by the Revenue is less than Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, these appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable in view of Circular No.21/2015 issued by Central Board Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 10.12.2015, according to which the appeals under Section 260A of the Act before High Courts cannot be filed by the Department, if the tax effect is below Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent- Assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present case comes to Rs.19,65,015/- and therefore consequential penalty amount would also be of the same amount involved in connected appeal.

Date of order: 26.03.2018 ITA 6007/2010 C/W ITA 6008/2010 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manoji J. Torgal 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue Mr.Ameet Kumar Deshpande is not able to controvert this statement of the learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee. 6. In view of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, the present appeals filed by the Revenue are held to be not maintainable and the same are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- JUDGE JUDGE swk