COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI M. KANTHILAL,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal on the ground of tax effect. The Court referred to Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 crore. As the tax effect in the present case was less than Rs.1 crore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect is found to be above the limit fixed in the circular, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax Central I, filed a Tax Case Appeal against the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in I.T.A.No.718/Mds/2013. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Shri.M.Kanthilal. The assessment year in question is 2006-07. The appeal before the High Court was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the deletion of an addition on account of unexplained jewellery and the recomputation of interest under Section 234B.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.26,06,666/- made on account of unexplained jewellery disclosed under Section 132(4) when it was retracted without any evidence to prove the claim? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT was right in directing to recompute interest under Section 234B after adjustment of cash seized during search without considering the CBDT's clarification in F.No.256/105/2005 dated 13-07-2006 which do not permit application of cash seizure against the advance tax liability? (Question of law) 3. Whether the ITAT was right in directing to recompute interest under Section 234B after reducing the cash seized during search by relying on the ITAT's decision in the case of V.Varadharajan which has not been accepted by the department's appeal pending before the High Court? (Question of law) Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The learned Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted 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, which fixes the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court at Rs.1 crore. Therefore, 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.323 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.323 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Central I, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai ... Appellant Vs Shri.M.Kanthilal
...Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 20.08.2013 in I.T.A.No.718/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.323 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 20.08.2013 in I.T.A.No.718/Mds/2013 in dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by which the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. 2.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant. 3.This tax case appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i)Whether the ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.26,06,666/- made on account of unexplained jewellery disclosed under Section 132 (4) when it was retracted without any evidence to prove his claim? 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.323 of 2018 (ii)Whether the ITAT was right in directing to recompute interest u/s.234B after adjustment of cash seized during search without considering the CBDT's clarification in F.No.256/105/2005 dated 13-07-2006 which do not permit application of cash seizure against the advance tax liability? (iii)Whether the ITAT was right in directing to recompute interest u/s.234B after reducing the cash seized during search by relying on the ITAT's decision in the case of V.Varadharajan which has not been accpeted by department's appeal pending before the High Court?"
4.Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, 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. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.323 of 2018 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: "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 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.323 of 2018 open. In the event the tax effect is above the 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.
(N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.) 22.11.2019 ay To Commissioner of Income Tax Central I, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.323 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN, J. ay T.C.A.No.323 of 2018 Dated:22.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 132(4)
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Anilkumar Jayantilal Khatri, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2053/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026