THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MANSOOR SAHIB BAZIR ALI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the increased monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 12, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2009-10 and challenges the ITAT's deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271D of the Act. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. Subsequently, the Revenue informed the Court that it was not pursuing the appeal due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed based on the Revenue's submission regarding low tax effect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this particular case was below this revised threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.246 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.246 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Shri Mansoor Sahib Bazir Ali ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.05.2014 made in ITA.No.1997/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.246 of 2015 and Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, 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 12.05.2014 made in ITA.No.1997/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.The appeal was admitted on 14.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 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 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.246 of 2015 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 question of law framed is 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 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.246 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.246 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026