The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sri Hanamant B Shirol on 16 October, 2009

INWUHEHHHJCOURT(H'KARNATAKA(HRCUYTBENCH
ATDHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 16"" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. sAEC1=£R..AATHT'~ATJTij: . 1" 

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1CE.»s.-:51. sAT_YANA.T{A)?ANA 

1.T.A. NO. 10132005 M
BETWEEN:  é  L.

1. THE COMMISSIONER O..FjIN--COME_ TAX',
KHIMJIEHOT 'C_O'MMERC.CI.'AL. C~()-MPEEX,
OPP.CIVIL'-HOfS_B_ITAL;=_ = 
BELGAUM-5-90 "00-J .,  

2. THE INCONIE 'E0_P"§IC__ER,
WARD-w:1,. '  
BIJAPUR;-«, -

 " ' - APPELLANTS

 ..DSHI3uS'HA--C«HALA, ADVOCATE.)



' V'=.....sR1.HAi€AM«A%q:.T%A:'E. SHIROL

..VOj'_j:,.B_1}.APUR.* _ 

 (.sR"1_.STARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE.)

KASAGER1'v--._'ONi",

-- RESPONDENT

ETH1SIfDA.ISIHLED UNDER.SECT1ON 2flWA OF

 T:H'E"1NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISENG OUT OF ORDER



DATED 02,/02/2006 PASSED IN ITA NO. 128/PNJ12005,
FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, ERAYINCI TO
FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW,
E'.I'C.,. 

THIS APPEAL COMING FOR FINAL HEARINW(}':.f(D.l'§ivv.,
THlS DAY, SRI.V.G. SABIIAIIIT. 3, DELI,vEI;:ED..9.,jT,§~Iv«1e3._'-A

FOLLOWING JUDGMENT.

This appeal by thle'--v..,:reyen1.i.ev._iS--._f'i_,leid:""bei:ng

aggrieved by the order dated  piaSS"ed"lhy the
Income Tax Appellant Trib'tInalf,'llliPa;1.aj'iii.'.j}§e'_nch, in ITA
No.128/PAN]/2005li'j,;fI3r the =ia'SSe'SIS:t1tl'e1It.v.__$'iear 1999-2000,
wherein  Appelllla  (hereinafter called as 'the

Tribunal') thciappeal on the basis of the

}E:"i'1'£2il1aI"'l"5.SS__l§t3C1 byii"'th.e..__,revenue and the decision of the

saamyttintght  in CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works, 276

  holding that where the Subject matter of

'T-ifvthje--appeal,ViS less than RS.2,00,000/--, the appeal should

 r1oft'l13e..fil,.l'ed.

\sJ7



2) The assessee in this case had filed a return__.and

the assessment order was passed on 27-02-2004 

the assessment order the assessing officer rejtelcteidi"e'thei.i:' if

contention of the assessee that th<:"Mur'ie:~



REASONS

6) The learned counsel submitted that g'--t_he

circular issued by the CBDT would be 3

when no substantial question of law is involyed,V.an_:d intiie-K 0

subject matter is not recurring and the same  'cAov_e'r-eidp  

the decision of the Division Bench ofi"this Cou'r't*,a.iIn' 

of the decision of this Bench  dated
23-09-2008 wherein identicialilp iorlderfipilpapssed by the

Tribunal has beenfset a'siti"e:ii':aini§j]t_hei'.niatter has been

remitted  plaslsiing fresh orders on

merits of the"appeali:.iiV'bi§"'-holding that the appeal was

maintainable. uhaike 'held in the said decision dated

 I\loli362/2004 that where the appeal

invol.Ve.s_;Sitzbstantial question of law and the subject

 matter  nlot""lrecurring, the circular issued by CBDT

'».iw'lould'i1'rot be applicable. Following the reasons assigned

\}



in the said appeal we answer the above su'ostan___tial

question of law in the affirmative and pass the follo_x5vi:fi--gp':"*.iA4

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. by”

Tribunal in ITA No.I28/PAN}’;’«l2:lV0O5 lheldingz the

appeal is not maintainablve: setiasiidep.

The appiealp in {TA
ppiltixilaunal is held to
be maintai1fla’b’1c«.l2l:§l§1:-Til”.tlhé:feswtolred and remitted to
the Tribunail_flo.l_;: merits in accordance
with law._. _v V ii i ll

Sd/~
JUDGE

Sd/¥
JUDGE