THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, vs. M/S CHIKODI TAL. MAHILA SUPPLEMENTARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

ITA No.100088/2016 BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, OPP: CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590 001.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.)

A N D :

M/S CHIKODI TAL. MAHILA SUPPLEMENTARY NUTRITION PRODUCTION CENTER, ANKALI, TAL: CHIKODI, BELAGAVI-590001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, ADV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO A) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE, B) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, BENCH ‘B’ BENGALURU IN ITA.NO.1253(BANG)/2015 DATED 17.06.2016 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIPPANI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

: 2 : JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench ‘B’ Bengaluru in ITA No.1253(Bang) 2015 relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- assessee has raised a preliminary objection inasmuch as the maintainability of the appeal in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 whereby the monetary limits prescribed for filing the appeals in income tax matters before the High Court is Rs.20,00,000/- whereas the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs.3,87,065/-. On the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on 05.02.2018 we had directed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue to place on record the revenue audit objections based on which this appeal is filed. Pursuant to which, the learned counsel for the revenue has placed before us the file (Judicial folder of the department). The learned counsel has

: 3 : relied upon the inter-departmental communication dated 23.08.2016 available in the file to support his arguments that this case is covered under the exception Clause 8(c) of the Circular No.21/2015. 3. Clause 8 (c) of Circular No.21/2015 reads thus: “8. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) xxxx” 4. Two factors are relevant to come under this Clause 8(c). Firstly, there should be revenue audit objection in the case and secondly, the same has been accepted by the department. 5. It is apparent that the inter-departmental communication dated 23.08.2016 does not disclose about the revenue audit objection in the case or the same being accepted by the department. The copy of the

: 4 : audit objection not being placed before us, which would be the basis for invoking the exception Clause 8(c) of Circular No.21/2015, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the revenue that the case on hand falls under Clause 8(c) of the said Circular. Indisputably, the tax effect being less than Rs.20,00,000/-, the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

[Sd/-] JUDGE [Sd/-] JUDGE MBS/-