THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SEEDI BUILDERS
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 for appeals. The court found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the instruction was inapplicable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal. The dismissal was based on the net tax effect being less than Rs. 4,00,000, which was below the monetary limit for appeals as per instruction No. 2/2005.
What were the issues?
Whether the monetary limit for filing an appeal applies even if the tax issue is recurring in nature. Whether the principles of res judicata are applicable 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. 727 of 2012 IN ITA No. 1351 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: 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.1351/2006, 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 →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026