Ita/399/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Abishek Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 3[rd]DAY OF MARCH 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.399/200/7 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDINGCENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER|INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONINTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 19(1), C.R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE .., APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,). AND M/S ABISHEK DEVELOPERS|(EARLIER MANTRI HOUSE) MADHAVAN PARK CIRCLEJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE .., RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHAITHANYA, ADV.,). THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING|OUT.OFORDER|DATED31-10-2006 PASSEDIN|LTA!NO.3720/BANG/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003, 2003-04 & 2004-05, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE)SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, MII.ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.3720/BANG/2004 DATED 31-10-2006CONFIRMINGTHEORDEROF.THEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE|INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-19(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND.EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, Dilip B. Bnosale 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 Tax and Anotner -vs- Ranka and Ranka (2012) 72 DTR|(KAR) 270. ?.Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.Submits tnat against the order made in|ARanka and.Ranka’tne revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition(for short ‘SLP’) before the Hon’‘ble Supreme Court and it is pending consideration. He submits that identical matters|nave been disposed of by this Court in terms of the order|made in|Ranka and Ranka, reserving liberty to the revenueto seek revival of the appeal after disposal of the SLP filed.He, therefore, requested to grant liberty to the revenue tomake necessary application for revival of the appeal. ‘3.In 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.