THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ABDUL ASIF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the recurring nature of a tax liability issue does not override the monetary limit prescribed by the instruction for filing an appeal. The principles of res judicata are not attracted to tax jurisprudence, as also indicated by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
What were the facts?
The Revenue sought a review of a High Court order that dismissed their appeal. The dismissal was based on the net tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by Instruction No. 2/2005 for preferring an appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the recurring nature of a tax issue exempts an appeal from the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals. Whether the principles of res judicata apply to tax jurisprudence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 6th day of July, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 729 of 2012 IN ITA No. 1352 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Mangalore. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Investigation Circle Mangalore.
…Petitioners (By Sri M.Thirumalesh, Adv.,) AND: Abdul Asif Partner M/s. Seedi Builders D.No.11-8-675/9 Mission Street Mangalore. …Respondent
2 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 02-11-2011 passed in ITA No.1352/2006, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 02.11.2011 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect was less than Rs.4,00,000/-, as instruction No. 2/2005 prescribes a monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/- for preferring an appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the net tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs.4,00,000/-. But, the contention is that the issue relating to liability of payment of tax is recurring in nature and therefore the instruction is not applicable. Therefore, they seek for review of the order passed by this Court. 3. We do not see any merit in the said contention. As long as the issue relating to tax liability is less than
3 Rs.4,00,000/-, merely because it is of a recurring nature, is no ground to deny the benefit of the said circular to the assessee. In fact, it is clear that the principles of res judicata is not attracted to tax jurisprudence which is also made manifest by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ca
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026