Rp/323/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri K Sathyashankar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 22[nd]day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR ANT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 3233 of 201 IN ITA No. 397 otf 200 BETWEEN: 1.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue BuildingsAttavaraMangalore 2.The Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax,of Income Tax, Mangalore ... Petition (By Sri E. R. Indrakumar for sri E. I. Sanmathi, Advocates) AND: ori K. SathyashankarProprietor M/s. Praveen TyresDarbe, PutturD.K. 574 202 ... Respond This Review Petition is filed under Order 4/7 Rule 1 and of CPC praying for review of the order dated 21-03-2012 in ITANo.397/2008, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court ofKarnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day,N KUMARJ9made the following:- ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by thisCourt on 21.3.2012 whereunder this Court dismissed theappeal on the ground that the net tax effect was less thanRs.4,00,000/-, as instruction No. 2/2005 prescribes amonetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/- tor preferring an appeal. 2. Itis not in dispute that the net tax effect in the appealwas less than Rs.4,00,000/-. But, the contention is that thisliability of payment of tax is recurring in nature and thereforethe instruction is not applicable. Therefore, they seek forreview of the order passed by this Court. 3. We do not see any merit in the said contention. Aslong as the tax liability is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, merelybecause it is of a recurring nature, is no ground to deny thebenefit of the said circular to the assessee. In fact, it is clearthat the principles ofres judicata)is not attracted to taxjurisprudence which is also made manifest by Section 268A ofthe Income Tax Act. Therefore, this review petition isdismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE