PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. YENNARKAY R. CHIRANJEEVIRATHNAM

TCA/246/2023HC Madras19 September 2025Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, noted the submission that the case has a low tax effect. In light of Circular No.05/2024 and Circular No.09/2024 issued by the CBDT, the Revenue expressed its unwillingness to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court explicitly stated that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter, indicating that the dismissal was not on merits but due to the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was made, and no issue was left undecided as the appeal itself was dismissed.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai (the Revenue) against an order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10 and challenges the ITAT's decision. The matter was heard by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Revenue's counsel informed the court that the case has a low tax effect and, in light of recent CBDT circulars, the Revenue does not wish to pursue the appeal further. The assessee, Yennarkay R. Chiranjeevirathnam, was represented by counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2009-10 should be dismissed, considering the low tax effect and relevant CBDT circulars. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the Revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal implies an acceptance of the ITAT's order or a strategic decision based on the low tax effect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the case has a low tax effect. In view of Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellant/Revenue does not wish to proceed with the matter. The Revenue also stated that the question of law may be kept open for consideration in an appropriate matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA No.246 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN TCA No.246 of 2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai. .. Appellant -vs- Yennarkay R.Chiranjeevirathnam .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in ITA No.218/Chny/2020 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.V.Mahalingam Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.P.E.R.Mangala Suvigaran, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:52:21 pm ) TCA No.246 of 2023 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue. Mr.Sriraman, learned counsel, appears for the respondent/Assessee. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submits that it is a case having low tax effect. Therefore, in view of the Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, the appellant/Revenue does not wish to proceed with the matter, though the question of law may be kept open for consideration in the appropriate matter. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 19.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:52:21 pm ) TCA No.246 of 2023 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai. Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:52:21 pm ) TCA No.246 of 2023 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN

, J.

(sra) TCA No.246 of 2023 19.09.2025 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 06:52:21 pm )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →