Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan

TCA/216/2024HC Madras21 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's learned Standing Counsel that, as per CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024, the tax effect in the instant case was less than the imposed monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue requested that the appeal be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law open for adjudication at a later point. Recording this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal for low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were kept open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case, nor the reasoning behind them, were discussed or decided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Ward 1(2), filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, allowing the appeal of the assessee, Shri. Rajamanickam Arulselvan. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in dismissing their appeal without the assessee producing evidence of agricultural activity on the land sold and that the ITAT ignored relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, the Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024, stating the tax effect was below the monetary limit.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in dismissing the Revenue's appeal without the assessee producing any evidence of agricultural activity being undertaken on the land sold? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal, ignoring the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras in PCIT Vs. A.Lalichan [2019] 104 taxmann.com 30? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in ignoring the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarifa Bibi Mohamed Ibrahim -vs- CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC) and M/s.Ramnarain Sons Pvt Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay 41 ITR 534 SC? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal without evidence of agricultural activity and in ignoring the cited High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Revenue also submitted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.216 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.216 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Ward 1(2) BSNL Building, Tower-1 4th Floor, Greams Road Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. .... Appellant Vs. Shri.Rajamanickam Arulselvan .... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench Chennai, dated 01.04.2024 made in I.T.A.No.479/Chny/2023. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.216 of 2024 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in dismissing the appeal of the revenue without the assessee producing any evidence of agricultural activity being undertaken on the land sold? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee, ignoring the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras rendered in the case of PCIT Vs. A.Lalichan [2019] 104 taxmann.com 30. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohamed Ibrahim -vs- CIT 204 ITR 631 (SC) No.504/2018 and M/s.Ramnarain Sons Pvt Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay 41 ITR 534 SC? 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.216 of 2024 3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 21.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.216 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.216 of 2024 21.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →