COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K SATHYASHANKAR

PDF · subscribers
RP/323/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01024168201222 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 the appeal from the monetary limit prescribed by the instruction. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's contention and dismissed the review petition.

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 below the monetary limit prescribed for preferring an appeal. The Revenue argued that the recurring nature of the tax liability made the instruction inapplicable.

What were the issues?

Whether the recurring nature of a tax liability exempts an appeal from the monetary limit for preferring an appeal. Whether the instruction prescribing a monetary limit for appeals is applicable to recurring tax liabilities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 RP No. 323 of 2012 IN ITA No. 397 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue Buildings Attavara Mangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore …Petitioners (By Sri E. R. Indrakumar for Sri E. I. Sanmathi, Advocates) AND: Sri K. Sathyashankar Proprietor

2 M/s. Praveen Tyres Darbe, Puttur D.K. 574 202 …Respondent This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 21-03-2012 in ITA No.397/2008, 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 21.3.2012 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 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 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. 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 →