COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARY JOHN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal on the grounds of tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for filing appeals before the High Court. As the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 1 crore, the appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the prescribed limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The reasoning for dismissing the appeal was purely procedural based on the monetary limit set by the CBDT, not on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Ward II (2), Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 31.10.2017. The ITAT had allowed the assessee's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessment year in question is 2008-09. The appeal before the High Court was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation and application of Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically regarding the deposit of unutilized capital gains. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal should be dismissed due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 1 crore, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the failure to deposit unutilized capital gain in a bank account as per the capital gains account scheme is a procedural lapse and does not violate Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not following Section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates deposit of unutilized capital gain in a bank account under the capital gains account scheme before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), despite the assessee not making such a deposit? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The appeal has a tax effect less than Rs. 1 crore and is therefore covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets Rs. 1 crore as the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.11.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Ward II (2), Chennai. ... Appellant Vs Mrs.Mary John Old No.92-B, New No.15, 1st floor, A1 Block, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. PAN: ABRPM 1156 H
...Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.10.2017 in I.T.A.No.2089/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa For Respondent : Mr.Anand Sashidharan 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) This tax case appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.10.2017 in I.T.A.No.2089/Mds/2014 in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by which the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. 2.Heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Counsel for the appellant. 3.This tax case appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i)Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the failure to deposit the unutilized capital gain in a bank account in accordance with the capital gain account scheme is a procedural lapse and that the provisions of Section 54 (2) of the Income Tax 1961 are not violated? (ii)Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not following the provisions of Section 54 92) of the Income Tax Act 1961 which mandates that the unutilized 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 capital gain must be deposited in a bank account in accordance with the capital gain account scheme before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inspite of the fact that no such deposit was made by the assessee?"
4.Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore and is covered by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi. As per the said circular, the monetary limit to file an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs.1 crore. In this case, tax effect is less than Rs.1 crore and therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed. 5.This Court perused the circular dated 08.08.2019 and Paragraph No.2 of the Circular, which prescribes monetary limit for filing appeal. Paragraph No.2 is usefully extracted as follows: 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 "2.As a step towards further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows: S.No. Appeals / SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appeallate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000" 6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on account of tax effect. However, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the limit fixed in the said 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 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.
(N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.) 22.11.2019 ay To Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Ward II (2), Chennai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN, J. ay T.C.A.No.270 of 2018 Dated:22.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 54(2)
- Divya, Haryana vs ITO Ward 1, SonipatITA 5159/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
- Biswaranjan Sen, Mumbai vs Int Tax Ward 4(2)(1), MumbaiITA 1527/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2026AY 2017-18
- Gurumurthappa Krishnamurthy Yashoda… vs DCIT, Circle-7(2)(1), BangaloreITA 2264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Jun 2026AY 2015-16
- Nitin Bhatia, Hyderabad vs ITO., Ward-12(1), HyderabadITA 1472/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
- Madan Lal Bhaskar, Faridabad vs ITO Ward 1(3), FaridabadITA 4416/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026