THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. M/S ABHISHEK DEVELOPERS

ITA/397/2007

AI Insights

The case involves multiple income tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-Tax Officer against M/s. Abhishek Developers concerning the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The appeals were based on a common order passed by the ITAT Bangalore, which confirmed the orders of the Appellate Commissioner. The primary legal issue was whether the appeals were maintainable given the net tax effect was below the threshold of Rs. 10,00,000, except for one appeal where the tax and interest combined exceeded this limit. The court referenced the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Ranka & Ranka to support its decision to dismiss the appeals due to the mandatory limit on tax effect for filing appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700949 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Ranka & Ranka
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHYTHANYA
• Assessee Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Keywords: Income tax appeal; Interest payable; Net Tax Effect; Mandatory Limit
• Section: 201; 260-A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.397 OF 2007 c/w INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.398 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.413 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.400 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore 2. The Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Circle – 19(1), C.R Building, Queens Road, Bangalore ..APPELLANTS (common in all above Appeals) (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Adv.) AND: M/s. Abhishek Developers, (Earlier Mantri House), Madhavan Park Circle, Jayanagar, Bangalore. .. RESPONDENT (Common in all above Appeals) (By Sri Chythanya K.K, Adv.) 2 These I.T.A.Nos.397/2007, 398/2007, 413/2007 & 400/2007 are filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of common Order dated 31-10-2006 passed in ITA Nos.3722/Bang/2004, 3721/Bang/2004, 1100/Bang/2005 & 3719/Bang/2004 respectively for the Assessment Year 2002-2003, 2003-04 & 2004-05, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA Nos.3722/Bang/2004, 3721/Bang/2004, 1100/Bang/2005 & 3719/Bang/2004 dated 31-10-2006 respectively confirming the orders of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Circle-19(1), Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. These Appeals coming on for final hearing this day, KUMAR J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT In these three appeals the net tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the revenue submits that in ITA.No.398/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04, the subject matter of the appeal is Rs.9,40,938/- towards tax payable and Rs.1,49,404/- is the interest payable under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, it exceeds the limit of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said circular makes it 3 clear that for the purpose of finding out the net tax effect, it is the amount due alone should be taken into consideration. 2. In a case where the interest claimed itself is in dispute, then the total amount of interest should be taken for finding out the net tax amount. When the tax and interest both are claimed in the subject matter of the proceedings, it is the net tax payable which has to be taken into consideration. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Ranka & Ranka reported in 72 DTR 270 (KAR), the effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and the revenue has preferred appeal before the Supreme Court (SLP No.27468/2012) and is pending disposal of the appeal and the subject matter is same in each of these appeals. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable. In view of the decision of this Court in Ranka and Ranka case, the appeals are to be dismissed on the ground of mandatory limit. If the Revenue succeeds in the SLP pending before the Supreme Court, the appellants are at liberty to make an application for revival of the appeals 4 for disposal on merits. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj "