THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. MAJOR P EBENEZER

PDF · subscribers
RP/532/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01073868201122 June 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 does not exempt it from the monetary limit prescribed for preferring an appeal. The court found no merit in the Revenue's contention and dismissed the review petition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue sought a review of a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a net tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue argued that the recurring nature of the tax liability made the instruction inapplicable.

What were the issues?

Whether a recurring tax liability is exempt from the monetary limit for filing an appeal. Applicability of monetary limits for appeals in tax matters.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH R.P. No. 532 of 2011 IN WTA No. 8 of 2007 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Central Circle C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 2. The Wealth Tax Officer Ward-1(2) C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore …Petitioners (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND:

2 Mr. Major P. Ebenezer Since deceased by his LRs. 1. Mrs. Kamala Ebenezer, Wife 2. Mrs. Asha Latha Ebenezer, Daughter No.001 Maria Residency Wheeler Road Cookes Towns Bangalore-560 005 …Respondents This Review Petition is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act R/w Section 114 of CPC, praying for review of the order dated 16-08-2011 passed in WTA No. 8 of 2007, 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 16.8.2011 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 this

3 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 tax liability is less than 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. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.I/2012 for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ckl

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →