Ju Dbgment v. Ranka And Ranka 72 Dtr 270, The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THR 12 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 PRESENT THR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO ANT THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK B.MANOHAR 1.T.A. No.385 OF 2007 BBRITIWE 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, C.R. Building, 09/1, Shilpashree, Vidhyaranya Complex, Vishveshwaranagar, Mysore-95/7000 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1,Circle-1, Hassan. (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) Appellants AND: Mr. H.s. Vyaya Kumar,Prop. Chowdeswari Service Station,B.M. Road,Channarayapatna,Hassan District,Hassan — 573116. (By Sri A. Shankar & Sri M. Lava, Advocates) Respondent This I.T.A. is filed U/s.260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arisingOUTOT Order|dated~28.11.2006passed$&I.T.A.No.108/Bang/2005 for the Assessment Year 1999-00,praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to(i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated thereinand (11) allow the appeal and set-aside the order of the ITAT,Bangalore in ITA No.108/Bang/2005 dated 28.11.2006confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner andconfirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-1, Bangalore, in the interest of justiceand equity. This appeal is coming on for final hearing this day,SREEDHAR RAO, J.,delivered the following: JU DBGMENT It is the contention of the appellants that on the basisof the monetary limit as per Circular No.2/O05 the appeal inot maintainable. The case falls within exception mentionedin the circular wherein the appeal is permitted to be filed if itinvolves a question of recurring in nature and cascadingeffect on the other similar matters. The question whetherCircular 3/11 which prescribes the revised monetary limit isprospective or retrospective, is a matter to be decided in theappeal contemplated to be filed by the appellant. In view ofthe decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Vs. RANKA AND RANKA 72 DTR 270, the appeal is disposed of. The Appellants submit that they havebeen given instructions to file SLP against the decision inCommissioner ot Income Tax Vs. Ranka ®& Rank. In theevent the Supreme Court were to hold that Circular has onlyprospective effect, the appellant is given liberty to file memoand revive the appeal for disposal. Accordingly, for thepresent, the appeal is disposed of. NM* od/-JUDGEod/-JUDGE