IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NKPATlL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AN. VENUGOPALA GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5009 of 2010 BETWEEN: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Feroz Khimjibhai Commercial Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum-590 001. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Peroz Khimjibhai Commercial Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum 590 001 APPELLANTS (By Sri, YV. Raviraj, Adv) AND: VandanaAGogate. ud war Peth, , Tilakwadi, IBeau RESPONDENT (By Sri. HR. Kambiyavar, Ad’) This Income Tax Appeal is filed under Section 260 A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against order passed in MA 14/PNJ/2009 dated 07.08.2009 & I.T.A. No. 223 1 ’PNJ/2007 dated 18.02.2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji. dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue. This Income Tax Appeal coming on for admission this day, N.K.Patil J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT Though this matter is posted in the orders list, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, on the ground that the subject matter is directly covered by the judgment of this Court. 2, This appeal arises out of the impugned order in M.A. No.14/PNJ/2009 in ITA No. 223/PNJ/2007 dated 07.08.2009 and ITA No. 223/PNJ/2007 dated 18.02.2009 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji. This appeal has been filed for considering 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? 1• I I—, I 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? 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 on internal matter of the Revenue even though noticing the judgment of this Hon ‘ble Court and amendment to Section 268A of the Act? 3. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants and the respondent. 4, The learned counsel for both the parties at the outset, submitted that the subject matter involved in this matter is directly covered by the judgment passed by this Court dated 16. 1O2OO9 in LT.A, No. 1013/2006 (The Commissioner of Income Tax & another v. Sri. Hanamant.B, Shirolj. Therefore, they submitted that, following the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the instant appeal may also be disposed of. /i• 4 5. Placing the said submissions on record, the instant appeal filed by the appellants stands disposed of, following the judgment and order dated 16.10.2009 passed in l,T,A, No. 1013/2006 (The Commissioner of Income Tax & another u. Sri. Hanamant.B. Shirol) and for the reasons stated therein. Ordered accordingly. Sri. H,R. Kambiyavar is permitted to file vakalath for the respondent within four weeks from today. Sd/ JUDGE J1.JDGE hnm/