PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SMT.T.UMA DEVI

PDF · subscribers
TCA/310/2017HC Madras29 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit. The Court explicitly stated 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 threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'A' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the ITAT's decision in ITA No. 2041/Mds/2016. The assessee is Smt. T. Umadevi. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's counsel informed the court that the appeal was not being pursued due to 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 below this threshold.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no fresh evidence was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A), thus obviating the need for a remand report from the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in not adjudicating the merits of the additions made and simply confirming the order of the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the appeal was not being pursued due to the low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the substantial questions of law, nor does it record any arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.310 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.310 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. .. Appellant -vs- Smt.T.Umadevi, No.396, Nethaji Road, Erode-638 001. PAN: AAF PU 7529 P .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 30.11.2016, made in I.T.A.No.2041/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Standing Counsel ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.310 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 30.11.2016, made in I.T.A.No.2041/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2010-11. 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that no evidences were freshly submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) and hence no remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A), as required under Rule 46A of the IT Rules? And (ii) Whether the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in not adjudicating the merits of the additions and simply confirmed the order of the CIT(A)?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.310 of 2017 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 08.08.2019 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 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 questions of law framed are 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.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.310 of 2017 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.No.310 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 46A

All 520 judgments and leading authorities on Section 46A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →