COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT.

PDF · subscribers
TCA/20/2015HC Madras27 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, in light of Circular No.17/2019 issued by the CBDT. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold limit. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2008-09 and challenged the ITAT's cancellation of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee is M/s. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The dispute involved a difference amount of Rs.32,61,310/- on the sale of capital gains and the non-declaration of short-term capital loss as required under Section 94(7). The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was right in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee concealed a difference amount of Rs.32,61,310/- on the sale of capital gains, which was noticed by the Assessing Officer, and thereafter the assessee filed a revised computation and paid tax thereon? (Question of law turning on Section 271(1)(c)) 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was right in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee failed to declare the short-term capital loss as required under Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law turning on Section 271(1)(c) and Section 94(7)) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in both instances, as the assessee had concealed income related to capital gains and failed to declare short-term capital loss as mandated by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 94(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.20 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.20 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6th Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore - 641 012. PAN: AABCM9751G ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.05.2014 made in ITA.No.1616/MDS/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.20 of 2015 appellant/revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 07.05.2014 made in ITA.No.1616/MDS/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. 3.The appeal was admitted on 17.02.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee concealed the difference amount of Rs.32,61,310/- on sale of Capital Gain which was noticed by the Assessing Officer and thereafter the assessee filed the revised computation of capital gain and paid the tax thereon? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c), when the assessee has not declared the short term capital loss as required under Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.20 of 2015 effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6th Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore - 641 012. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.20 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.20 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →