Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 vs. Shri Venugopalan Parandhaman

TCA/288/2024HC Madras2024/MHC/401629 November 2024Bench: Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that it did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 and sought its withdrawal based on CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 due to low tax effect. The Court noted that the substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's failure to consider an order nullifying a statutory rule as falling under an exceptional clause of CBDT Circular 3/2018 appeared misconceived, as the Revenue conceded that no Act or Rule was challenged before the ITAT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving the questions of law open for decision in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Chennai (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench, dated December 18, 2023, in ITA No.1173/Chny/2023. The assessee is Shri Venugopalan Parandhaman. The Revenue sought withdrawal of the appeal concerning assessment year 2019-20, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024, which allows withdrawal of appeals with low tax effect. The High Court noted that one of the substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue pertained to whether the ITAT failed to note that an order nullifying a statutory rule makes it lose its legal force, falling under an exceptional clause of CBDT Circular 3/2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has failed to note that any order nullifying an unambiguous statutory rule makes it lose its legal force and is therefore covered within the exceptional clause (a) of para 10 of CBDT's Circular 3/2018 viz. “Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge”? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Revenue also framed a substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's alleged failure to consider that an order nullifying a statutory rule loses its legal force, potentially falling under an exception in CBDT Circular 3/2018. However, the Revenue conceded that there was no challenge to any Act or Rule before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2024:MHC:4016 T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.11.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Non-Corporate Circle 10 (1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. .. Appellant vs Shri Venugopalan Parandhaman No.9, Costal Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. PAN : ALNPP3762G .. Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 18.12.2023 in ITA No.1173/Chny/2023. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J) Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant/Department would submit that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue this appeal qua assessment year 2019 - 20 and seeks withdrawal of the same on account of the low tax effect per Circular bearing No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 2. Incidentally, we find that substantial question of law No.4 states as follows: 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has filed to note that any order nullifying an unambiguous statutory rule makes it lose its legal force and is therefore covered within the exceptional clause (a) of para 10 of CBDT's Circular 3/2018 viz. “Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge”? 3. However, as acceded to by Mr.Narayanasamy and as apparent from a reading of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, there was no challenge to any Act or Rule before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and hence this question of law appears to be misconceived. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 4. Recording the aforesaid submission, this tax case appeal is dismissed as withdrawn leaving the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs. [A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]

29.11.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes sl 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J. Sl T.C.A.No.288 of 2024 29.11.2024 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →