What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal is not maintainable due to the same reasons as the previous appeal, which was dismissed based on monetary limits.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order. A similar appeal concerning a common order by the ITAT was previously dismissed by the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in light of prescribed monetary limits for appeals.

PCIT vs M/S Danish Steel Cluster Pvt Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.20 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

PR.COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

(APPEALS)-III,

BENGALURU.

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

AND:

SRI.M.R.ANANDARAM (HUF) GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA BENGALURU – 560 054. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.LAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 27-A OF WEALTH TAX ACT 1957, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

29.11.2016 PASSED IN WTA NO.30/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS 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 29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU IN WTA NO.30/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA No.30/Bang/2014. Said order is a common order passed in WTA No.30/Bang/2014, WTA No.31/Bang/2014, WTA No.32/Bang/2014, WTA No.33/Bang/2014. Insofar as the order passed by the Tribunal in WTA No.32/Bang/2014, Revenue had come

up in appeal in WTA No.26/2017. This Court, by order dated 24.10.2019 disposed of the said appeal as not maintainable in view of monetary limits fixed in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The order passed by this Court in WTA No.26/2017 on 24.10.2019 reads as under: “The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the monetary limits in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 passed by Director (ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi and also in terms of the Circular No.5 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD)-(ITJ), Central Board Direct Taxes.

In view of the submission made, the appeal is dismissed as such.”

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DANISH STEEL CLUSTER PVT LTD

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments