The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr Abhijit S Gogte on 16 October, 2009

IN TIIE IIIOII COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DEARWAD 

DATED THIS THE 16"" DAY OF OCTOBER 20%)?"in-_fV..

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \I;TG....sAIu3IIA'H.-ITO"   

AND
THE HON'B_LE MR. §UST'ICE'SS_v.Té," sAT=YANASRAi3'<AIIsIA
I.T.A. NO. 469/'2.007_ I  I

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER.O_F»IN.CO1\'£'E 
KHIMJIBHO1COMMERC_IALV C]-A/IPLEX,
OPP. CIVIL;-.IIC§7S'P.ITAIL;;_   
BELGAUM»5_90"'0G..1.b    

2. THE INCOME 'FAX'IO_P'II?_IC_ER,
wARD--'I,_(:»;)T, I j  
BELGAUEVI. - S 

, , ._ I I - APPELLANTS

 .,SHEAAS'HA--C«PIALA, ADVOCATE.)

AND 

 "    DR.AEII'IIIT_' ST: COGTE,

Sf.TILAI<wA~DI; BELGAUM.

(.'B'"II"_SRSI".""A_K.RPRASAD, ADVOCATE.)

57, BUD'HAv--WA.RPET,

- RESPONDENT

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF

 I TEIETIINCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER



DATED E5/01/2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 61/PAN}/2906,
FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, PRAYINGOT 'TO

FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION 

ETC.,.   _

THIS APPEAL COMING FOR FINAL 
THIS DAY, sRI.v.O. SABHAHIT. .peL.IvERAIajD '

FOLLOWING JUDGMENIDGMENTE

This appeal by th'e:__"1?evenu~el: is 

aggrieved by the Order dated  .p'a3.s'edy.i§by the

Income Tax Appellant  (SCM),

Panaji in ITA  "assessment year

2003.04, lwhereiVA"Ie:fI;§fA'p;§:e1Iate Tribunal (hereinafter

called as 'then"EribuVna__l'T)._v dismissed the appeal On the

:_b'a~s.i_s  .s_'3i1'C1h}lllEli'"~ ---- --issued by the revenue and the

deeigeeheei'e<fhe'e1?§peIpyhi High Court in Orr Vs. ITAT, 232

T  pavg-,.e:E:',.l'll6, holding that where the subject matter

"~'.-Ti,0"f__lthe appeva__ll:'is less than Rs.2,00,000/-, the appeal should

 net be -med.

\}



'L43

2) The assessee in this case is a doctor employed

by the KLE Society, Beigaum. He filed a return ajr1vd:"fti_h'eVA'

assessment order was passed on 0l--03--2005  V'

assessment order the assessing V-o"ffi'cerrejejetedi'--tl1eii'g

contention of the assessee that thelianiotznt 

way of professional incomenslheoiild as
salary. Being aggrieved7:by._   assessee
preferred appeal   before the
Office of the  (Appeals),
Belgaum and an order dated
24-11-200:5.'   part. Being aggrieved

by the  . ior_dler," w.l:_ll..'i'ReVenue preferred {TA

:_No,vo1/Ef'}l¥.i\{U2QO6i'before the rtibttnai and the Tribunal

diisni1iVssl'e'dsA "t.§}/et,,'ap_lp*eal of the revenue in limine holding

'V7-...vthat  stt_bj'ie?{;til matter of the appeal is less than

~--i«i.j'jR.s}'2,00,000[?# and in View of the limit prescribed by

ii"-ieii(3}'§i.i7i,A'{'.._ajliiftd in View of the decision of the oeltti High

lii'C'0u.:_'tl in CIT Vs. ITAT, 232 rm 207, page 215, the

K)



appeal is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by thesaid

order ofthe Tribunal this appeal is filed.

3) We have heard the learned counselaappeiiairiiaging ii

for the appellant-Revenue and the re's}5'o'nd¢not. ~;'  V 

4) The substantial question tefiiaw ti,n--1vov'lvi'ed':*:in i

this appeal is as foilowsz

Whether the  impugned
in this appeal,  avp~p'_e..aVlv'iniiilimine is not

maintainable i:;'cL§.I1trafyf tO--{ijaw'- .aii1d"vper'verse and liable to

be set aside, in  .' ~

5) :.-,We ainswerr" the substantial question of law in

:'thpeii'afftii.r'1nfQ_r the following:

REASONS

6) "file iearned counsel submitted that the

i*--i.i.icirioul'a_ri:i.'ssued by the CBDT would be applicable only

\)



ORDER

The appeai is aliowed. The order

Tribunal in ITA N’o.61/PAN}/2006″».holé’i.fig’j’V{Ih;tt’

appeal is not maintainable Es set aside’. A’

The appeal fiieci ‘V

No.61/PANJ/2006 on the true o€ctthee*I?:i”Aba1«na1 isheta to be
maintainable and the appe_2V1_It’ Ai_s remitted to

the Tribunai f0r2_’Vfré;;.}i tiihjsposéil d’n_V11.3evr–it’s in accordance

sd/-

%%\     jUDGE

Sd/-5
JUDGE

  Mmt