THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ABDUL ASIF

PDF · subscribers
RP/729/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01023807201206 July 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 268A

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

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →