THE COMMISSIONER vs. SHRI EMMANUEL GUNASEELAN.R

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1084/2015HC Madras17 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding the tax effect being less than the monetary limit imposed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law themselves, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) against the common order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, Chennai. The appeals concerned assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding receipts received by the assessee, Shri Emmanuel Gunaseelan R, from Bharat Scan Limited. The High Court admitted the appeals on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this threshold.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts received by the assessee from Bharat Scan Limited were not covered by the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the advances received are to be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and therefore, the appeals should not be pursued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant in all T.C.As Vs. Shri Emmanuel Gunaseelan R .. Respondent in all T.C.As Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos. 1869/Mds/2013, 1870/Mds/2013 and 1871/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar in all T.C.As Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1869/Mds/2013, 1870/Mds/2013 and 1871/Mds/2013, for the respective assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 2. By order dated 30.11.2015, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law : “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts received by the assessee from Bharat Scan Limited was not covered by the provisions of Section 2(22)(e)? 2) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the advances received is to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)?” 3. When these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board Direct 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals are less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 17.08.2022

Index : Yes / No gya To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(2), Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Chennai 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya T.C.A.Nos.1084 to 1086 of 2015 17.08.2022

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →