THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. DR SHOBHANA PATTED NO. 613,

RP/1530/2012

AI Insights

The case involves multiple review petitions filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer against various respondents, all of whom were previously involved in tax-related disputes. The petitions sought to review orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which had dismissed the revenue's appeals on merits. The primary legal issue was the maintainability of the appeals concerning tax liabilities that were less than Rs.4 lakhs, as stipulated by Circular No.2/2005. The court referenced a precedent in M/s Ranka and Ranka, which held that the circular applies retrospectively, affecting even pending proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 702466 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Ranka and Ranka
• Laws Referred To: Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC, Circular No.2/2005, Circular No.3/2011
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Keywords: Income Tax; Less than Rs.4 lakhs; Maintainability of appeal; Review petition; Tax liability
• Section: 114; 47

Judgement Text

"- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA R.P No.1522/2012 c/w R.P Nos.1524, 1527, 1528,1529 & R.P.No.1530/2012 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Khimbhoi Commercial Complex, Opp: Civil Hospital, Belgaum 590 001. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum. PETITIONERS (Common) (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj for Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi – Advs.) AND: IN R.P No.1522/2012: Dr. Poojar Vijay Channaiah, CTS No.9296, P.B.Road, Mahanteshnagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 223/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. - 2 - IN R.P No.1524/2012: Dr. Mahadev Dixit, Plot No.150, Rani Channamma Nagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 225/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1527/2012: Dr. S.N.Suresh, JN Medical College, Neharunagar, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 228/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. IN R.P No.1528/2012: Dr. Suresh Patted, No.613, Srinagar, Double Road, MM Extension, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. No. 495/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. - 3 - IN R.P No.1529 & 1530/2012: Dr. Shobhana V. Patted, No.613, Srinagar, Double Road, MM Extension, Belgaum. RESPONDENT This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order dated 22.09.2011 passed in I.T.A. Nos. 496 and 497/2008 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. These petitions coming on for hearing on I.A. this day, N.Kumar J., made the following: O R D E R In all these cases, appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed on merits. It is to review the said order, these review petitions are filed. 2. It is not in dispute that the tax liability in all these appeals/review petitions is less than Rs.4 lakhs. By virtue of Circular No.2/2005, the Revenue could not have preferred the appeals against the order passed by the tribunal where the amount involved was less than Rs.4 lakhs. - 4 - 3. In that view of the matter, whatever may be the merit of the decision, the appeal itself was not maintainable and therefore, all these review petitions are dismissed on the ground that the subject matter of the proceedings is less than Rs.4 lakhs. 4. In fact, this Court in the case of M/s Ranka and Ranka has held, even though Circular No.3/2011 in particular clause 11 makes the said circular prospective, it is retrospective and therefore the assessee are entitled to the benefit. It is submitted that the revenue has preferred an appeal against the said order before the Apex Court. As the subject matter of these review petitions is less than Rs.4 lakhs and as this Court has already taken the view that notwithstanding the said circular being prospective in nature, it applies to pending proceedings also, the question of recalling the order passed on merits even if it is erroneous would not arise. - 5 - 5. However, in the event the Apex Court were to set-aside the order passed by this Court making the said circular applicable to pending proceedings and holds it is only prospective in operation, liberty is reserved to the income tax to seek review of these review petitions. With this observation, these review petitions are disposed of. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE mkc "