IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3063 OF 2010 (T-IT) BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU. ...APPELLANT (By Sri K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI DINAKAR ULLAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/s.DEVCHAND CONSTRUCTIONS, THOKKOTTU PERMANNUR, MANGALURU – 575 017. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri A.SHANKAR, Sr.COUNSEL FOR Sri M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. 13797/2009 (T-IT).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 24.02.2010 in allowing W.P.No.13797 of 2009 in part and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure- ‘A’ relating to denial of interest of Rs.2,41,505/-, the Respondent- Revenue has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments on merits.
3. The same is disputed by Sri M.Lava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He submits that in terms of the impugned order, denial of the interest amount of Rs.2,41,505 was allowed along with applicable interest from 21.09.1998 upto 01.07.2008. The said amount according to him would be less than Rs.2 Lakhs. Therefore, he pleads that the amount involved would be too minimal for interference. It would not be necessary for this Court to get into the merits of the appeal in view of the Circular No.5 of 2019 dated 05.02.2019 with regard to filing of Income-tax appeals by the Department beyond a specified monetary limit. The appellant counsel contends that the said Circular clearly indicates that the monetary limits would not be applicable to writ matters.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The entire tax effect in the instant writ appeal is less than a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs. It is too minimal an amount to be interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court.
5. However, the contention of the Income-tax Department is that monetary limits are not applicable to writ matters in terms of the Circular dated 05.02.2019. We are unable to accept the said submission. The writ petition has been filed by the assessee, in view of their being no remedy provided under the Income-tax Act to challenge the impugned order under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In the absence of an alternative remedy, the writ jurisdiction was invoked. Incase an alternative remedy was provided for under the Income-tax Act, in that event, an appeal would have to be filed, which would then be covered by the monetary limit. Only because an alternative remedy is not provided and the assessee was compelled to file a writ petition, the Revenue cannot take advantage of it. Therefore, for the Revenue to contend, that they are protected by the Circular in writ matters may not be correct. Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that the entire tax effect is less than Rs.2 Lakhs, we do not find it appropriate to venture into the merits of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE DH