Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 44 (KAR)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. M. D. Yashodharan

2013-01-07

B.MANOHAR, D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), was admitted to examine the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 254 of the Act has powers/jurisdiction to reject an appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that it is beyond monetary limit prescribed by the Board, without addressing the controversy raised before it? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue without being satisfied as to whether the Department appeal fell within the exceptions prescribed in the CBDT Circular by affording such an opportunity where the Department would have demonstrated that the matter had been pursued because of an audit objection raised? 3. Whether the Tribunal has a jurisdiction to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of monetary limit as prescribed by the Board, which is wholly an internal matter of the Revenue? The questions are as to the maintainability of the present appeal having regard to the valuation of the subject-matter of the appeal and the board Circular No. 2 of 2005, dated 24-10-2006 stipulating a minimum value for the department to file an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act etc. 2. Heard Sri K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-revenue and Sri D.S. Anirudda, learned Counsel for respondent-assessee. 3. Sri K.V. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-revenue fairly submits that though the revenue had raised a contention that the circular was only for an internal communication and education of the income tax authorities, that having been found statutory recognition now by the amendment to Section 268-A of the Act by Finance Act 18 of 2008 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1999, the statutory provision operates as an embargo for maintaining this appeal having regard to the valuation of the subject-matter of the appeal being below Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the Tribunal and Rs. 4.00 lakhs for this Court and neither conditions having been fulfilled in the present case, as subject-matter of this appeal is Rs. 1,60,800/-. In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed answering the questions against the revenue.