Ita/641/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S H M Constructions

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JANUARY 2014 PRESENT THERE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSAL AN D THR HON'BLBE MR..JUSTICBK B.MANOHA ITA NO.641/2006 BBRITWRE 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax,C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Circle-2(3),C.R.Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.....Appellant(By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate)AN):M/s.H.M.ConstructionsGeneva House,N.14, Cunningham Road,Bangalore — 560 052.... Responde(BySri.A.Shankar|&%sri.M.Lava,Advocatesforori.Abhinav Anand for Respondent) This ITA filed U/s.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arisingOUToT order.dated28-10-2005.passed1NITA.No.338/Bang/2005 for the Assessment Year 1996-97, praying that for the reasons stated therein, thisHon’ble Court may be pleased to. 1formulate the substantial questions of lawstated therein.stated therein. 11.Allow the appeal and set aside the orderspassed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITANo.338/Bang/2005 dated 28-10-2005 and.confirmthe.order.oT the AppellateCommissioner confirming Order passed bythe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax|Officer, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore, in theinterest of justice and equity.passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITANo.338/Bang/2005 dated 28-10-2005 and.confirmthe.order.oT the AppellateCommissioner confirming Order passed bythe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax|Officer, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore, in theinterest of justice and equity. This appeal coming on tor 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 dated 24-10-2005 issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax,to submit that since the tax effect, in the present case, does not exceed Rs.4,00,000/-, the department ought not to have preferred the appeal. In support, he alsoinvited our attention to Section ZO8A of the Income Tax| Act. 2 |Having confronted with this, Mr.Aravind, learned Counsel for the revenue could not and did not disputethe submissions advanced by the learned Counsel forthe respondent. 3.|In view thereof and considering the InstructionNo.2/2005 dated 24-10-2005 read with Section 268A ofthe Act, we dispose of the appeal as not maintainable. od/-|JUDGE. sd/-|JUDGE JUDGE _* | mp