Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ganesan Kannan

PDF · subscribers
TCA/29/2025HC Madras17 February 2025Bench: Honourable Mr Justice S. S. SUNDAR4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the amount involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars 5/2024 and 09/2024. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the substantial questions of law were expressly left open. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Tuticorin, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 23.08.2024 in ITA No. 698/Chny/2024. The ITAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Ganesan Kannan. The revenue has raised substantial questions of law concerning the ITAT's decision to allow the assessee's appeal, particularly regarding the timelines for completing assessments under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of extended timelines when there is no reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(1). The amount in dispute is stated to be below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars 5/2024 and 09/2024.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal by ignoring the provisions of Section 144C of the Act, which has an overriding clause over Section 153 regarding assessment completion timelines. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal by stating that there was no reference under Section 92CA(1), rendering the assessment completed on 19.01.2024 barred by limitation, contrary to Section 144C(3). 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing the appeal without appreciating Section 144C(13), which empowers the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after DRP directions within extended timelines. 4. Whether the ITAT was correct in concluding that extended timelines under Section 153(4) are not available when there is no reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) for an 'eligible assessee' as per Section 144C(15)(b), even with additions from any head including TPO reference. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The amount involved is below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circulars 5/2024 and 09/2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 144C,Section 153,Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 23.

TCA NO. 29 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN TCA NO. 29 of 2025 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation, Tuticorin. ..Appellant Vs Ganesan Kannan 1/8A, Keelakuttudankadu, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi 628 103. ..Respondent Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Memorandum of Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23. 08.2024 in ITA No. 698/Chny/2024. For Appellant : Mr. R.Karthik Ranganathan, St. Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman, ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.) This appeal is directed against the formal order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 23.08.2024 in ITA No. 698/Chny/2024. In this appeal the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law to be answered; 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “1. Whether the Ld. ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee while ignoring the provisions of section 144C of the Act, which has an overriding clause over the provisions of section 153, with respect to the time lines for completion of the assessment? 2. Whether the Ld.ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee, stating that there is no reference u/s of Section 92CA (1), and hence, the assessment completed on 19.01.2024 is clearly barred by limitation, contrary to the provisions of Section 144C (3) of the Act? 3. Whether the Ld.ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal without appreciating the statutory provisions, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153,"as per Section 144C (13), which empowers the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after the directions of the DRP, as per the extended timelines provided therein?" 4. Whether the Ld. ITAT is correct in concluding that when there is no reference to the TPO u/s 92CA (1), the extended timelines are not available as per section 153(4) of the Act, applicable to an éligible assessee' as per section 144C (15)(b), with additions made from any head, including TPO reference as per section 92CA? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount involved in the present appeal is below the monetary limit as per the circulars issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5/2024 and 09/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024 respectively. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. (S.S.SUNDAR J.) (C.SARAVANAN J.) 17-02-2025 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes ak 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S. S. SUNDAR, J. and C. SARAVANAN, J. ak TCA NO. 29 of 2025 17-02-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →