Commissioner Of income Tax vs. S Devi

TCA/149/2024HC Madras05 August 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was unable to entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue against the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application. The Court reasoned that if the Revenue believed there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the main order, it was open to the Revenue to challenge the main order itself by filing a regular appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Raising a point against the dismissal of a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) was considered not justified in this context. The Court dismissed the appeal with liberty to the Revenue to file an appeal against the main order. No costs were awarded. The issue of whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the main order was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. This appeal was against an order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, in a Miscellaneous Application (No.110/Chny/2023). The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record in the ITAT's main order dated 04.01.2023, passed in Income Tax Appeal No.428 of 2022. The ITAT dismissed the Miscellaneous Application through the impugned order. The High Court noted that the Revenue could have challenged the main order directly through a regular appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal against the dismissal of a Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the Revenue could have challenged the main order directly? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, S. Devi. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ITAT's main order dated 04.01.2023, which necessitated the filing of a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was against the dismissal of this Miscellaneous Application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.149 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax Non-Corporate No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. Appellant .Vs. S.Devi Respondent ----- Prayer : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 09.08.2023 passed in Mis.Application No.110/Chny/2023. ----- For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Miscellaneous Application No.110/Chny/2023 in Income Tax Appeal No.428 of 2022 under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 2. In fact the Tribunal passed the impugned order in I.T.A.No.428 of 2022 dated 04.01.2023. Against the said order, as according to the Revenue, there has been an error apparent on the face of the record, hence the said Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Act was filed, which was dismissed through the impugned order. 3. Since the main order has already been passed, which is staring on the Revenue, it is open to the Revenue to challenge the said order by filing the regular appeal. Instead, raising a point against the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act may not be justified, as whether there has been an error apparent on the fact of the record in the main order itself can be questioned while canvassing the grounds to be urged by the Revenue at the time of filing the appeal. When that being the position, we are unable to entertain this appeal. Therefore, with a liberty to file an appeal against the main order, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 05.08.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and C.SARAVANAN

, J.

KST T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 05.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →