Rp/173/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Ice Network (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU| DATED THIS THE O DAY OF JANUARY 2015 PRESENT| THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR ANT) THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICEKE B.MANOHAR REVIEW PETITION NO.173 OF 2013IN ITA NO.544 OF 2008 BETWEEN : 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDs), NO.99, HMT BHAVAN| [‘T]FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. (TDS) RANGE-16(2) NO.59, HMT BHAVAN|#[‘T]FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD#[‘T]FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE_ PRHTITIONBRS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s. ICE NETWORK (P) LTD.,NO.647/10, BRINDAVAN COMPLEXRAJAJI NAGAR DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD BANGALORE — 560 010 —. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS REBEVIBW PRTITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 |RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED03/10/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.544/2008, ON THE FILE OF)THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.| THIS RBEVIBW PRTITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONTHIS DAY,N.KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this case, when this Court dismissed the appealpreferred by the revenue on the ground being less than|the monetary limit, the said order was challenged before|the Apex Court. The Apex Court has passed the|following order: “Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department tomove the High Court pointing outthat the Circular dated 9[./]February2011, should not be applied ipsofacto, particularly, when the matterhas a cascading effect. For that purpose, liberty is granted tothe Department to move the HighCourt in two weeks.” oD In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court order,this review petition is filed. | 3.|Learned counsel for the revenue submits that.as the question involved in this petition is of recurring|nature, it needs to be heard on merits and decided. What|the Apex Court has said is, if any common principle is involved in the subsequent group of matters or large|number of matters, then the case is to be decided on|merits. 3.|Learned counsel for the revenue submits that. 4When this case is dismissed, the Court has |not looked into the merits of the case. No law is laid |down, it was dismissed only on the ground of monetary|limits. If the very same principle is involved in the|subsequent year or any subsequent group of matters orany large number of matters as pointed by the ApexCourt, certainly dismissal of those appeals only on the|esround of monetary limits would not come in the way of this Court deciding the said common principle involved in any subsequent group of matters or any large number of|matters. In that view of the matter, we do not see any|justification to review the order. Accordingly, the review| petition is dismissed. HJ SD/-|JUDGE SD/- JUDGE