Ita/130/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt B Arathi Raju
High Court
29 Aug 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/130/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt B Arathi Raju
Date of order
29 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
2004-2005
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/130/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt B Arathi Raju, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS|
.INCOME TAX APPEAL Nos.130131/2012
BETWEEN:
1.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL C.R. BUILDINGS,CENTRAL C.R. BUILDINGS,
QUEENS ROAD,BANGALORE.
2).DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-(2) 2,BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS|
(BY SRI. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) |
AND:
SMT. B. ARATHI RAJU,NO.32, 1 A CROSS,|RMV EXTENSION,BANGALORE -—- 560 O8Q
... RESPONDENT|
(BY SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE)
THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER
DATED 06.01.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.436/BANG/2010 AND ITANO.507/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005,PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAWAND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BEFORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.Il]. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED BY THEITAT, -B’ BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.436/BANG/2010 ANDLIANO.507/BANG/2010|DATED06.01.2012,FORTHE|ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2004-05.|
THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL|HEARING, THIS DAY,DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue brings totne notice of this Court a Circular bearing No.1/7 of 2019 datedO8[;/]August, 2019 wherein the further enhancement of monetary|limit for filing of appeals by the Departments before the Income-
Tax Appeliate Tribunals, High Courts and Special LeavePetitions/Appeals before the Supreme Court stands amended,and by the said amendment the earlier monetary limit ofRs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh) has not been raised toRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore). The earlier monetary limitwas prescribed as per Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11[;/]July,2018. In the light of the same, the learned counsel submits that|tnese appeals are not maintainable and in view of the Circular,|
these appeals may be permitted to be withdrawn. Further, tnejearned counsel would also draw tne attention of this Court toClause 10 of the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11[;/]July, 2018wherein certain exceptions are carved out. The learned counselsubmits that at the present stage it may not be possible for himto submit wnetner the matter falis Under any of the exceptions. |Therefore, it is prayed that liberty may be reserved to theappellants to move this Court, if it is found that the matter fallswithin the exception carved out in Clause 10 of Circular bearingNumber 3 of 2018.
2. On the query of the Court as to wnether the Circular is |applicable to pending matters, the learned counsel draws theattention of this Court to the communication dated 20[;/]AUGUST,2019 made by the Central Board of Direct Taxation to all theChief Commissioners of Income Tax clarifying at paragrapn No.3that the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No.17 of 2019 isapplicable to all pending Special Leave Petitions, Appeals, CrossObjections and References.
3. In view of the above, we permit the appellants to.withdraw these appeals for the reasons stated above. Liberty isalso granted to the appellants to seek revival of these appeals, ifit is found that the matter falls within the exception carved out inClause 10 of Circular bearing No.3 of 2018.
BvK/-
Sd/-JUDGE
Sd/-JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.