Rp/35/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri Y G Kashinath (Huf)

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 BBRITIWE R.P. No. 35 of 2012 IN WTA No. 131 of 2006 1.The Commissioner of Income TaxC.R. BuildingQueens RoadBangalore 2.The Income Tax OfficerWard-5(4)C.R. BuildingQueens RoadWard-5(4)C.R. BuildingQueens Road Bangalore ...Petitione (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: ori Y.G. Kashinath (HUF)Sudhama House ChickpetBangalore-62 ... Respond This Review Petition is filed under Section ZJ6OOA oft Income Tax Act praying for review of the order dated 05-09-2011 passed in WTA No. 131 of 2006, on the file of the Hon’bleHigh Court of Karnataka, 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 9.9.2011 whereunder this Court dismissed the appealon 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/- for 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. In that view of the matter, we do not see anyjustification to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.I/2012 forcondonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE