THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI.R.SRINIVASAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The tax effect in this particular case was stated to be below this limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were expressly left open. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated March 21, 2019. The appeal pertained to the block period from 1987-88 to 1995-96 and a part of 1996-97. The dispute involved additions made to the income of the assessee, Shri R. Srinivasan, concerning the valuation of shares in M/s. Anchor Breweries Ltd. The ITAT had restricted additions to the face value of shares, contrary to the Revenue's claim for fair market value. The Revenue's appeal was listed for hearing before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in limiting the additions to the face value of shares (Rs. 100) instead of the fair market value of M/s. Anchor Breweries Ltd. shares, considering they were obtained without adequate consideration and not through a recognized stock exchange? (Relates to Section 158BC). 2. Whether the Tribunal's reasoning was proper in holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded the scope of Section 158BC by using a valuation report to determine the fair market value of shares, when Section 158BC(1)(b) allows reference to a valuation officer for seized/requisitioned capital assets? (Relates to Section 158BC). 3. Whether it was proper for the Tribunal to restrict additions to the face value of shares, as opposed to the fair market value, given that a previous High Court order in an earlier round of appeal had upheld the AO's action in arriving at Rs. 6732 as the value against the face value of Rs. 100, before remanding the issue back to the AO? (Relates to Section 158BC). Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue submitted 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 158BC,Section 142,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. Shri R.Srinivasan No.103, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “A” Bench, dated 21.03.2019 in I.T.(SS) A.No.1/Chny/2018, Block period 1987-88 to 1995-96 and Part of 1996-97. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 21.03.2019 made in I.T.(SS) A.No.1/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Block period 1987-88 to 1995-96 and Part of 1996-97. 3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law in the above appeal : “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restricting the additions made to the face value of the shares at Rs.100/- as against the addition of fair market value of the shares of M/s.Anchor Breweries Ltd. on account of valuation report obtained during the Block Assessment Proceedings without appreciating the fact that the shares had been obtained without paying any adequate consideration and that too not by way of any transaction carried out through any Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 recognized stock exchange? 2.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by holding that the Assessing Officer had travelled beyond the language employed in Sec.158BC by considering the valuation report obtained for arriving at a Fair Market Value in respect of shares of M/s.Anchor Breweries Ltd as per the provisions contained in clause (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 158BC which allows the AO to exercise the provision of sec.142, Subsection (2) and (3) of Section 143 and Section 144 and to make a reference to the valuation officer with reference to seized/requisitioned capital assets? 3.Was it proper for the Tribunal to restrict the additions made in respect of the face value of the shares as against the addition of Fair Market Value of M/s.Anchor Breweries Ltd wherein in the earlier round of appeal to High Court in para 25 of its judgment had upheld the action of the AO in arriving at Rs.6732/- as per the value as against the face value of Rs.100 while remanding the issue back to the file of the AO?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in this case 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. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 16.07.2021 mkn
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn T.C.A.No.370 of 2021 16.07.2021 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 158BC
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3… vs Olive Overseas Private LimitedITA/783/202628 Sept 2026
- Amit Kandhari, Barakar vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), KolkataITSSA 51/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
- Amit Kandhari, Barakar vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), KolakataITA 1402/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
- Venad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kerala vs DCIT, New DelhiITSSA 12/DEL/2011[01/04/1986 to 06/11/1996]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026
- S. Krishna Kumar (HUF) vs DCIT, Central CircleITSSA 325/DEL/2005[1.04.86 to 6.11.96]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026