Ita/133/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri P B Ramamurthy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF MARCH 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.133/2008 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROADC.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE| 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), C.R. BUILDINGCENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,)| AND SRI PB RAMAMURTHY| C-20, IST CROSS, 8TH MAINVASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT | (BY SRI A SHANKAR & SRI M LAVA, ADVS) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF|ORDER DATED 31-10-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 163/BNG/2007, FOR:THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE.SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THEAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I[TATBANGALORE IN ITA NO. 163/BNG/2007,DATED 31-10-2007 CONFIRMTHE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY.COMMISSIONEROFINCOME.TAX,|CENTRALCIRCLE|1(3),.BANGALORE.| THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: Learned Counsel for the respondent, at the outset,invited our attention to Instruction No.2/2005 dated24.10.2005 issued by tne Central Board of Direct Tax.under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘Act’), to submit that since the tax effect, in the present)appeal, does not exceedz4,00,000/-, the appeal is not|maintainabie. He also brougnt to our notice the Judgment.of tnis Court InCommissioner of Income Tax and|Anotner -—vs- Ranka and Ranka (2012) 7 DTR (KAR) 2/O0. 2.Having confronted with this, Mr.K.V.Aravind,learned Counsel for the revenue could not and did not.dispute the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel|for the respondent. 3.In view thereof and considering the InstructionNo.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 issued under Section 268A of. tne Acct,we dispose of this appeal as _ nomaintainablesince theCaxeffect1S lessthan.44,O0,000/-. However, liberty is reserved to the revenue to make application to seek revival of the appeal, if they|succeed in the SLP filed against the judgment in °Rankeand Ranka’Ca Se. TL| Sd/-JUDGE. Sd/-JUDGE.