Dr. Shobhana v. Patted

-]|- IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATKHKBD THIS THR DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEBK N. KUM AN THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA R.P No.1522/2012 c/w R.P Nos.1924, 1927, 1928,1929 &R.P.No.15930/201 BETWHREN 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Khimbhoi Commercial Complex, Opp: Civil Hospital, Belgaum 590 OO1, 2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum, PETITIONERS (Common) (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj for Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi — Advs.) AND: IN R.P No.1922/2012: Dr. Poojar Vijay Channaiah,CTS No.9296, P.B.Road, Mahanteshnagar, Belgaum, RBRSPONDEN This Review Petition is filed under Order 4/r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 223/2008 onthe file of the High Court of Karnataka, CircuitBench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1524/2012: Dr. Mahadev Dixit,Plot No.150,Rani Channamma Nagar,Belgaum. RBRSPONDEN This Review Petition is. filed under Order 4r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 2295/2008 othe file of the High Court of Karnataka, CircuitBench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1927/2012: Dr. S.N.Suresh,JN Medical College,Neharunagar,Belgaum. RBRSPONDEN This Review Petition is filed under Order 4/r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 228/2008 onthe file of the High Court of Karnataka, CircuitBench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1528/2012: Dr. Suresh Patted,No.613, Srinagar,Double Road, MM Extension,Belgaum. RBRSPONDEN This Review Petition is filed under Order 47r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 4995/2008 othe file of the High Court of Karnataka, CircuitBench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1529 & 1530/2012: Dr. Shobhana V. Patted, No.613, Srinagar,Double Road, MM Extension,Belgaum. RBRSPONDENThis Review Petition is. filed under Order 4r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. Nos. 496 and4977/2008On]thefileot theHighCourt 2Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. These petitions coming on for hearing on I.A,this day,N.Kumar J.,made the following: O RD BB R In all these cases, appeal filed by the revenuewas dismissed on merits. I[t is to review the saidorder, these review petitions are filed. 2 It is not in dispute that the tax liability in allthese appeals/review petitions is less than Rs.4lakhs. By virtue of Circular No.2/2005, theRevenue could not have preferred the appealsagainst the order passed by the tribunal where theamount involved was less than Rs.4 lakhs. -4~-— 3.In that view of the matter, whatever may bethe merit of the decision, the appeal itself was notmaintainableandtherefore,allthese1-8/-$petitions are dismissed on the ground that thesubject matter of the proceedings is less than Rs.4lakhs. 4In fact, this Court in the case of M/s RankaandRankahas]held,eCvVethoughCircularNo.3/2011 in particular clause 11 makes the saidcircularprospective,it.1sretrospective30<therefore the assessee are entitled to the benefit. Itis submitted that the revenue has preferred anappeal against the said order before the Apex Court.As the subject matter of these review petitions isless than Rs.4 lakhs and as this Court has alreadytakentheVIEW|that|notwithstandingthe%3/<circular being prospective in nature, it applies topending proceedings also, the question of recallingthe order passed on merits even if it 1S erroneouswould not arise. 5,However, in the event the Apex Court were toset-aside the order passed by this Court making thesaid circular applicable to pending proceedings andholds it is only prospective in operation, liberty isreserved to the income tax to seek review of thesereview petitions. With this observation, thesereview petitions are disposed of. SD/-JUDGE .D# SD/-JUDGE