Rp/1525/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Khimbhol v. Dr Mahadev Dixit

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE O8 DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR ANW THR HON’BLEK MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA R.P No.1923/2012 c/wR.P Nos.1929/2012 & 1926/2012 BEBETWRE 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Khimbhoi Commercial Complex, Opp: Civil Hospital, Belgaum 590 OO1, oDThe Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum, PETITIONERS(Common)(By Sri Y.V.Raviraj for Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi — Advs.) AND: Dr. Mahadev D.Dixit,Plot No.150,Rani Channamma Nagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT(Common) This Review Petition is filed under Order 47r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the orderdated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. Nos. 224, 226and 227/2008 on the file of the High Court ofKarnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. These petitions coming on for hearing onI.A. this day,N.Kumar J.,made the following: ORD BR In all these cases, appeal filed by therevenue was dismissed on merits. It is to reviewthe said order, these review petitions are filed. 2.It is not in dispute that the tax lability inall these appeals/review petitions is less thanRs.10 lakhs. By virtue of Circular No.3/2011,theReVenNUEcouldnothave|preferred|7*+appeals against the order passed by the tribunalwhere the amount involved was less than Rs.10lakhs. 3.In that view of the matter, whatever may bethe merit of the decision, the appeal itself wasnot maintainable and therefore, all these reviewpetitions are dismissed on the ground that the subject matter of the proceedings is less thanRs.10 lakhs, 4In fact, this Court in the case of M/s Rankaand Ranka has held, even though CircularNo.3/2011 in particular clause 11 makes thesaid circular prospective, it is retrospective andtherefore the assessee are entitled to the benefit.It is submitted that the revenue has preferred anappeal against the said order before the ApexCourt. As the subject matter of these reviewpetitions is less than Rs.10 lakhs and as thisCourthas)alreadytakentheVIEW|7*17notwithstandingthesaid.circular3+-.8prospective in nature, it applies to pendingproceedings also, the question of recalling theorder passed on merits even if it is erroneouswould not arise. 5.However, in the event the Apex Court wereto set-aside the order passed by this Courtmaking the said circular applicable to pendingproceedings and holds it is only prospective inoperation, liberty is reserved to the Revenue toseek for review of the order passed by thisCourt. With this observation, these reviewpetitions are disposed of. SD/-JUDGE ,D$ SD/-JUDGE