Ita/66/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri N Venkatesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF MARCH 2014. PRESENT THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE AND| THE HON‘'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.NO.66/ 2008 BETWEEN 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDINGCENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), C.R.BUILDINGQUEEN'S ROAD, BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARVIND, ADV., FOR SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND SHRI N VENKATESHNO.41, 1 MAIN ROAD|STH CROSS, GIRINAGARBANGALORE | .., 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 07-09-2007 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO.|55/BNG/200/,FORTHE|BLOCK|PERIOD1/4/1990|TO!29/12/2000, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL|QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL| AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE|IN IT(SS)A NO. 55/BNG/2007,DATED 07-09-2007 CONFIRM THEORDERSOFTHEAPPELLATECOMMISSIONERASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE. AND 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 Taxand 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 andRanka’the revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition(for snort ‘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 of the ordermade 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 tne revenue to make 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 tne.revenue to make necessary application to seek revival ofthe appeal, if they succeed in the SLP filed againstRankaand Ranke|Ca Se. lA Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/- JUDGE|