Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dr. Pradeep Kumar on 22 June, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
R.P. No. 340 of 2012
IN
ITA No. 354 of 2007
BETWEEN:
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax
C.R. Building, Attavara
Mangalore
2. The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Circle
C.R. Building, Attavara
Mangalore ...Petitioners
(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
AND:
Dr. Pradeep Kumar
L/R Late Sri P.V. Kunhikannan Vaidyar
2
Prop Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Shala
Near SLV Temple, Main Road
Puttur ...Respondent
This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC praying for review of the order dated 19-03-2012 passed
in ITA No.354 of 2007, on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore.
This Review Petition coming on for orders this day,
N KUMAR J., made the following:-
ORDER
The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 19.3.2012 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect which is the subject matter of the appeal was less than Rs.10,00,000/-, by following the judgment of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs M/S RANKA AND RANKA, ITA No. 3191/2005 disposed of on 2.11.2011.
2. It is submitted that the revenue is preferring an appeal against the order passed by this Court holding that the instruction No. 3/2011 is retrospective in nature and therefore 3 they submit that this petition has to await the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid appeal to be filed.
3. On that ground it is not possible to keep this matter pending. All that we can do is, as the appeal is dismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case of M/s. Ranka and Ranka, in the event of the Apex Court setting aside the said order and holding it as prospective, then it is open to the revenue to seek for review of the order. Reserving such liberty, this petition is dismissed. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.I/2012 for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ckl