Rp/604/2011 Of Th Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri M M Ananthamurthy

- 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. 604 oft 2O1 IN ITA No. 1320 of 2006 BBRITIWE 1.The Commissioner of Income TaxC.R. Building, Queens RoadBangaloreC.R. Building, Queens RoadBangalore 2.The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle — 9 (2),Income Tax, Circle — 9 (2), C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore ... Petition (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: ori. M.M. Ananthamurthy,351, 6[th]Block, Dr. Rajkumar Road,Bangalore ... Respond This Review Petition is filed under Section 260A oft thIncome Tax Act, praying for review of the order dated 24.8.2011passed in ITA No. 1320 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day,N KUMARJ9made the following:-a ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by thisCourt on 24.8.2011 whereunder this Court dismissed theappeal on the ground that the net tax effect was less thanRs.4,00,000/- and therefore covered under Circular No.2/2005, ”2. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted there wasa circular issued by the Department which stated that, if thecumulative effect of tax effect for two consecutive years is morethan Rs.4,00,000/- then the benefit of the said circular cannotbe granted. 3. The same was not brought to our notice when theorder was passed. However, circular No. 2/2005 is nowsubstituted by circular No. 3/2011 wherein the net tax effect isincreased to Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, even otherwise, theorder cannot be reviewed. The Revenue submits that they aregoing to file an SLP questioning the order passed by this Court.However, if the order passed by this Court holding that thecircular No. 3/2011 is not retrospective in nature butprospective, then it is open to the petitioner to seek review olthis order. Therefore, the review petition is rejected, with theliberty as aforesaid. In that view of the matter, we do not seeany justification to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.I/2012for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE