M/S METAL CLOSURES PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/24/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01013706201512 June 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending proceedings. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed on the same grounds as the earlier appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was part of a batch of appeals arising from a common ITAT order. A similar appeal was previously dismissed by a coordinate bench.

What were the issues?

Whether CBDT Circular No.17/2019, setting monetary limits for appeals, applies to pending proceedings before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.24 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF WEALTH TAX,

CIRCLE 6(1),

BENGALURU.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.M.R.KODANDRAM (INDL) GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU. PAN:ADIPK7939H

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. M.LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 27-A OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED IN C.O.NO.94/BANG/2014 IN WTA NO.24/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006, 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 31.03.2015 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.O.NO.94/BANG/2014 IN WTA NO.24/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA No.24/Bang/2014. Said order is a common order passed in WTA Nos.16 to 29/Bang/2014 and CO Nos.86 to 97/Bang/2014.

2.

Under similar circumstances, Coordinate Bench in WTA No.26/2017 by order dated 24.10.2019

dismissed the said appeal on monetary limits fixed in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.

3.

However, learned counsel appearing for Revenue would contend that said Circular is prospective and cannot be made applicable to the pending matters, which we are not inclined to accept in the light of law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANOTHER V/S RANKA & RANKA reported in (2013) 352 ITR 121 (KARN), wherein it has been held that scope of Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes would be applicable to the pending proceedings, which also came to be affirmed by Apex Court in the case DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V/S S.R.M.B DAIRY FARMING (P) LTD. reported in (2018) 400 ITR 9 (SC) vide paragraph 23. In fact, Central Board of Direct Taxes has also issued an instruction bearing No.F.No.279/MISC/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019 intimating all the Principal Chief

Commissioners of Income Tax that Circular No.17/2019 would be applicable on all pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references. Hence, contention of learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi stands rejected.

4.

In the light of aforesaid facts, the present appeal as already noticed herein above, being an off shoot of common order passed by ITAT, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable in view of aforestated order passed in WTA No.26/2017 dated 24.10.2019.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand consigned to records.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE UN

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →