Rp/726/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri M M Ananthamurthy

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 6[th]day of July, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 726 ot 2012 IN ITA No. 1319 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1.The Commissioner of Income TaxCentral CircleC.R.BuildingQueens RoadBangalore.Central CircleC.R.BuildingQueens RoadBangalore. 2.The Assistant Commissioner ot Income TaxCircle-9(1)C.R.BuildingQueens RoadBangalore.Circle-9(1)C.R.BuildingQueens RoadBangalore. _.. Petition (By Sri M.Thirumalesh, Adv.,) ANT) ori M.M. Ananthamurthy351,60[th]BlockDr. Rajkumar RoadBangalore. ... Respond This Review Petition is tiled under Order 47 Rule 1 and2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 13-02-2012passed in ITA No.1319/2006, on the file of the Hon’ble HighCourt of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day,N KUMARJ9made the following:- ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed bythis Court on 13.2.29012 whereunder this Court dismissethe appeal on the ground that the net tax effect was lessthan Rs.4,00,000/-, as instruction No. 2/2005 prescribes amonetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/- for preferring an appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the net tax effect in theappeal was less than Rs.4,00,000/-. But, the contention is|that the issue relating to lability of payment of tax isirecurring in nature and therefore the instruction is notapplicable. Therefore, they seek for review of the orderpassed by this Court. 3. We do not see any merit in the said contention. As long as the issue relating to tax liability is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, merely because it is of a recurring nature, is|no ground to deny the benefit of the said circular to theassessee. In fact, it is clear that the principles ofres judicatais not attracted to tax jurisprudence which is also mademanifest by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore,this review petition is dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE Ca