COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. C.BALARAMAN

PDF · subscribers
TCA/12/2022HC Madras24 January 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this stipulated threshold limit. In light of this submission, the Court found that the appeal, wherein the tax effect was less than the monetary limit, was to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenged an order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in I.TA.No.107/Mds/1998. This order pertained to assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98. The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision regarding the applicability of block assessments under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that block assessments under section 158BD could not be made unless the assessment is based only on materials, valuables, etc., found during the course of such search? The Revenue contended that the appeal should be considered based on the substantial question of law framed. The Revenue also brought to the court's notice Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent assessee, C. Balaraman, on the merits of the substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BD,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.12 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.01.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case (Appeal).No.12 of 2022 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

... Appellant Vs. C.Balaraman

... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, in in I.TA.No.107/Mds/1998. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in I.TA.No.107/Mds/1998, relating to the Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.12 of 2022 assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the block assessments under section 158BD could not be made unless the assessment is based only on materials, valuables, etc., found during the course of such search ?” 2.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 Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal 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 is less than the threshold limit. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.12 of 2022 an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 24.01.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nvsri To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “A” Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.12 of 2022 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

nvsri T.C.A.No.12 of 2022 24.01.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 158BD

All 209 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →