THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R MAHADEV DIXIT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Revenue could not have preferred appeals where the amount involved was less than Rs. 4 lakhs as per Circular No. 2/2005. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed review petitions seeking to review the High Court's earlier order dismissing their appeals. The tax liability in all these cases was less than Rs. 4 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax liability is below the threshold specified in the circular. The applicability of Circular No. 2/2005 to pending proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA R.P No.1522/2012 c/w R.P Nos.1524, 1527, 1528,1529 & R.P.No.1530/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Khimbhoi Commercial Complex, Opp: Civil Hospital, Belgaum 590 001. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum. PETITIONERS (Common) (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj for Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi – Advs.) AND: IN R.P No.1522/2012: Dr. Poojar Vijay Channaiah, CTS No.9296, P.B.Road, Mahanteshnagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 223/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad.
- 2 - IN R.P No.1524/2012: Dr. Mahadev Dixit, Plot No.150, Rani Channamma Nagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 225/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1527/2012: Dr. S.N.Suresh, JN Medical College, Neharunagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 228/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1528/2012: Dr. Suresh Patted, No.613, Srinagar, Double Road, MM Extension, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 495/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad.
- 3 - IN R.P No.1529 & 1530/2012: Dr. Shobhana V. Patted, No.613, Srinagar, Double Road, MM Extension, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. Nos. 496 and 497/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. These petitions coming on for hearing on I.A. this day, N.Kumar J., made the following: O R D E R In all these cases, appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed on merits. It is to review the said order, these review petitions are filed. 2. It is not in dispute that the tax liability in all these appeals/review petitions is less than Rs.4 lakhs. By virtue of Circular No.2/2005, the Revenue could not have preferred the appeals against the order passed by the tribunal where the amount involved was less than Rs.4 lakhs.
- 4 - 3. In that view of the matter, whatever may be the merit of the decision, the appeal itself was not maintainable and therefore, all these review petitions are dismissed on the ground that the subject matter of the proceedings is less than Rs.4 lakhs. 4. In fact, this Court in the case of M/s Ranka and Ranka has held, even though Circular No.3/2011 in particular clause 11 makes the said circular prospective, it is retrospective and therefore the assessee are entitled to the benefit. It is submitted that the revenue has preferred an appeal against the said order before the Apex Court. As the subject matter of these review petitions is less than Rs.4 lakhs and as this Court has already taken the view that notwithstanding the said circular being prospective in nature, it applies to pending proceedings also, the question of recalling the order passed on merits even if it is erroneous would not arise.
- 5 - 5. However, in the event the Apex Court were to set-aside the order passed by this Court making the said circular applicable to pending proceedings and holds it is only prospective in operation, liberty is reserved to the income tax to seek review of these review petitions. With this observation, these review petitions are disposed of. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE mkc
More judgments on Section 114
- Savino Del Bene Freight Forwarders (India)… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4990/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup vs Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container…W.P.(C)-3002/202116 Sept 2026
- Fahim Ahmad vs Commissioner of CustomsW.P.(C)-17561/20252 Sept 2026
- Laxmi Bhatter, Kolkata vs DCIT, CC 2(1), KolkataITSSA 52/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed11 May 2026AY 2019-2020
- Aabid Ali Khan, New Delhi vs ACIT Central Circle 26, New DelhiITA 1714/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026