COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. G.V.G. PAPER MILLS PVT

PDF · subscribers
TCA/339/2018HC Madras01 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which directs that appeals should not be filed or pursued by the Department in such cases. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and close the connected miscellaneous petition. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide findings on the substantial questions of law themselves.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-07 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the reopening of assessment for M/s. G.V.G. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law on 03.07.2018. Subsequently, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening was bad in law, without considering Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the four-year period had expired, the reopening of assessment is bad in law, without considering sub-section (1)(b) of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act which provides for reopening of such cases? The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in holding the reopening bad in law without considering Explanation 3 to Section 147 and sub-section (1)(b) of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 147,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant

Versus M/s. G.V.G. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., No.168/2, Sikkandar Batcha Street, Gandhi Nagar, Udumalpet 642 128. (PAN: AAB CG 1438 N)

... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.117/Mds/2014. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.117/Mds/2014, relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2.By order dated 03.07.2018, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening was bad in law, without consider Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that since four year period has admittedly expired, the reopening of assessment is bad in law without consider sub-section (1) (b) of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act which provides for reopening of such cases?" Page 2/5 T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 01.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Page 3/5 T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 av R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Circle I, Coimbatore.

4.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, Coimbatore. T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 Page 4/5 T.C.A.No.339 of 2018 and CMP.No.6453 of 2018 01.08.2022 Page 5/5

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →