Rp/176/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) v. M/S. Ice Network (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THER DAY OF JANUARY 2015) PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR ANT) THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICKH B.MANOHAR REVIEW PETITION No.176 OF 2013IN ITA No.541 OF 2008 BETWEEN : 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN| [‘T]FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. (IDS) RANGE -16(2) NO.99, HMT BHAVAN| [‘T]FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE _ PRHTITIONBRS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S. ICE NETWORK (P) LTD., NO.647/10, BRINDAVAN COMPLEXRAJAJI NAGARDR. RAJKUMAR ROADBANGALORE - 560 O10 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIBW PRTITION [IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED03/10/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.541/2008, ON THE FILE OFTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THISRBEVIB\PRITITOINCOMINGON|KORADMISSIONTHISDAY,N._KUMARJ.>MADE|THRFOLLOWING: ORDER In this case, when this Court dismissed the appeal| preferred by the revenue on the ground being less than the monetary limit, the said order was challenged beforethe Apex Court. The Apex Court has passed thefollowing order: “Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to.move the High Court pointing out)that the Circular dated 9[./]February2011, should not be applied ipso’facto, particularly, when the matter)has a cascading effect. For that purpose, liberty is granted to.the Department to move the High)Court 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 recurringnature, it needs to be heard on merits and decided. Whatthe Apex Court has said is, if any common principle isinvolved in the subsequent group of matters or largenumber of matters, then the case is to be decided onmerits. 4When this case is dismissed, the Court has.not looked into the merits of the case. No law 1s laiddown, it was dismissed only on the ground of monetarylimits. If the very same principle is involved in thesubsequent year or any subsequent group of matters orany large number of matters as pointed by the ApexCourt, certainly dismissal of those appeals only on thesround of monetary limits would not come in the way ofthis Court deciding the said common principle involved in any subsequent group of matters or any large numberof matters. In that view of the matter, we do not see anyjustification to review the order. Accordingly, the reviewpetition is dismissed. HJ SD/-|JUDGE SD/-| JUDGE