THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S CAUVERY KALPATHARU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

ITA No.135/2015

BETWEEN

The Commissioner of Income-tax

No.55/1, Shilpashree Building

Vishweshwaranagar

Mysore-570 008.

The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Circle-1(2), No.55/1,

Shilpashree Building

Vishweshwaranagar

Mysore-570 008. …Appellants

(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

AND

M/s. Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank No.314, Dewan’s Road Mysore-570 008. ….Respondent (By Sri B.K. Mohan, Advocate)

This Income-tax Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income-tax Act 1961, to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in M.P.No.36/Bang/2014, ITA No.394/Bang/2012 dated:05/12/2014 confirming the order of the Appellate

Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2), Mysore.

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, N.K. Patil, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the revenue questioning the correctness of the order dated 5.12.2014 passed in MP No.36/Bang/2014 [in ITA No.394/Bang/2012] on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore confirming the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1[2], Mysore to consider the following substantial question of law.

‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not following its own decision in the case of Syndicate Bank ITA No.668 & 669/B/2010 dated 19.6.2013 and overlooking its own decision constituted a mistake rectifiable under section 254[2] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further also overlooking the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 343 ITR 270 [SC] in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank and also Board’s Instruction No.17/2008 dated: 26.11.2008?’

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the Circular bearing No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, since the subject matter is less than Rs.20 lakhs, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

In reply to the said submission, learned Counsel for the appellants has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

Submission of learned counsel for the parties is placed on record.

This appeal is disposed of, following the circular bearing No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE AN/-

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CAUVERY KALPATHARU