Ita/38/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt Fathima Moiodoo

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.38/ 2008 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER 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 SMT FATHIMA MOI[IODOM/S.C.K.K.CATERING SERVICES,NO.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. 170/BNG/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 I[TATBANGALORE IN ITA NO. 170/BNG/2006,DATED 24-08-2007 CONFIRMTHE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. © THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,Dilip B. Bhosale J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING PC: We have heard learned counse! for the parties. By|consent, the appeal is heard for final disposal at the stageof orders 2.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 than410,00,000/-. He also brought to our|notice the Judgment inCommissioner of Income Tax andAnotherRanka|and(2012) 72 DTR (KAR) 270. Ranka 3Mr. Jeevan J Neeralgi, learned counsel for the|revenue submits that against the order made in)ARanka and Ranka’the revenue has preferred a Special Leave.Petition (for snort “SLP’) before the Hon’bie 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 Ranka, reserving liberty to the revenue to seek revival of the appeal after disposal oftne SLP filed. He, therefore, requested to grant liberty to.the revenue to make necessary application for revival ofthe appeal. 4In view of the submissions made, the presentappeal 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.