Ita/37/2008 Of The Comissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri C K K Moidoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF APRIL 2014 PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.37/ 2008 BEI|WEE 1.THE COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALORE| 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX|CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE... APPELLANTS (BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND SRI C K K MOIDOO|M/S.C.K.K.CATERING SERVICESNO.2, PLATFORM RAILWAY STATION|MANGALORE ... RESPONDENT | (BY SRI BALRAM R RAO, ADV.,) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF|ORDER DATED 24-08-2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 169/BANG/2006 |FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE.THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW,THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT,.PASSED IN ITA 169/BANG/2006 DATED 24-08-2007 AND CONFIRM.THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR’ FINAL HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: Learned counsel appearing for the respondentsubmits that this appeal is not maintainable in view of.Instruction No.3/2011, dated 09.02.2011, issued by the.Central Board of Direct Tax, under Section 268A of the)Income Tax Act, 1961, since the tax effect in the instant|appeal is less than |d10,00,000/-. He also brought to our|notice the Judgment inCommissioner of Income Taxand Anotner -vs- Ranka and Ranka (2012) 72 DTR|(KAR) 270. ?.Mr.Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned counsel for therevenue submits that against the order made in)ARanka|and Ranka’tne revenue nas preferred a Special Leave|Petition (for short ‘SLP’) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.and it is pending consideration. He submits that identical |matters have been disposed of by this Court in terms oftne order made inRanka and Ranké, reserving liberty to the revenue to seek revival of the appeal after disposal ofthe SLP filed. He, therefore, requested to grant liberty to. the revenue to make necessary application for revival ofthe appeal. ‘3.In view of the submissions made, the present appeal Is dismissed as not maintainablesince tne tax.effect is less than410,00,000/-. Without expressing anyopinion on merits of the case, liberty is reserved to therevenue to make necessary application to seek revival of)the appeal, if they succeed in the SLP filed againstRanka|and RankeCa Se. TL Sd/- JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE.