Venkatesan Kalyanasundaram vs. The Income Tax Officer

TCA/231/2024HC Madras14 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after reviewing the order of the ITAT dated 03.07.2024 in I.T.A.No.487/Chny/2024, held that no substantial questions of law arose in the case. The Court found that the matter was purely a factual matrix which had been considered by the Tribunal and answered against the assessee. Therefore, the High Court stated that it was not necessary to re-examine the issues as if they were substantial questions of law. The High Court concluded that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. No specific finding was made on any of the individual issues raised by the assessee, as the Court found no substantial question of law to warrant an examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Venkatesan Kalyanasundaram, filed an appeal before the Madras High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.07.2024 in I.T.A.No.487/Chny/2024. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court reviewed the ITAT's order, which had decided against the assessee on issues related to factual matrix. The High Court noted that the ITAT had considered the factual matrix and answered against the assessee. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal to the High Court after the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide on the following substantial questions of law framed by the assessee: 1. Whether the ITAT's order was perverse in disregarding evidence and materials? 2. Whether the ITAT, as the final fact-finding authority, was right in ignoring evidence without adjudication? 3. Whether the ITAT's order was erroneous due to incorrect findings from non-appreciation of evidence? 4. Whether the ITAT's order was erroneous for failing to adjudicate the source of cash deposit as earlier withdrawals? 5. Whether the ITAT's order was right in not appreciating the evidentiary value of bank statements along with cash flow and deposits? 6. Whether the ITAT's order was vitiated due to failure to consider jurisdiction and inadequate time for passing orders? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT's order was perverse, erroneous, and vitiated due to non-appreciation and ignoring of evidence, including bank statements and cash flow, and that the source of cash deposits as earlier withdrawals was not adjudicated. The assessee also raised issues of jurisdiction and inadequate time. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.231 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.231 of 2024 Venkatesan Kalyanasundaram ... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward-1(2) Chennai 600 006. ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.07.2024 in I.T.A.No.487/Chny/2024. ----- For Appellant : Mr.I.Dinesh ---- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.) The following substantial questions of law have been framed to be agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.231 of 2024 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in disregarding the evidences and the materials placed before it? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being the final fact finding authority, is right in ignoring the evidences filed before it without adjudicating the same? 3. Is the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal not erroneous, as it has given incorrect findings as a result of non-appreciation of evidences filed before it? 4. Is the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal not erroneous, as it has failed to adjudicate the source of cash deposit as earlier withdrawals? 5. Is the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal right in not appreciating the evidentiary value of bank statements along with the cash flow and deposits which proves beyond reasonable doubt? 6. The order of the tribunal is vitiated as the Tribunal failed to look into the aspect of jurisdiction, passing of orders granting inadequate time? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.231 of 2024 2. We, after having gone through the order impugned passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 03.07.2024 in I.T.A.No.487/Chny/2024, do not find any such question of law arising in this case, since it is purely factual matrix, which has been considered by the Tribunal and answered against the assessee. The same need not be gone into once again by way of examining the same, as if substantial questions of law, as framed by the assessee's counsel, have arisen in this case. 3. In view of the same, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 14.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.231 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.231 of 2024 14.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →