COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.HANDLOOM HERITAGE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TCA/391/2015HC Madras01 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that the tax effect in the instant case was less than the monetary limit imposed. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal for low tax effect. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal would be kept open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the substantial question of law regarding the quashing of revision orders under Section 263.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Central Circle, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated May 18, 2011. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision to quash revision orders passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee is M/s. Handloom Heritage Limited. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on a substantial question of law. However, during the proceedings, the Revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the instant case was below the monetary limit prescribed, and therefore, the appeal could be disposed of without adjudicating the substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the revision orders made under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax as infructuous? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the substantial question of law pertains to the Tribunal's correctness in quashing revision orders under Section 263 as infructuous. The Revenue also submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the monetary limit, and therefore, the appeal could be dismissed without deciding the substantial question of law, keeping it open for future adjudication. The Respondent (Assessee) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.391 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.391 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax IV Central Circle, Chennai 600 034. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Handloom Heritage Limited No.37, Rajamannar Street T.Nagar, Chennai-17. ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 18.05.2011 made in ITA No.1799/Mds/2010. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.K.Ravi J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.391 of 2015 Bench, Chennai and the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the revision orders made under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax as infructuous?" 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue can be disposed of, keeping the substantial question of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. 3. Recording the said submission, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial question of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 01.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.391 of 2015 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.391 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.391 of 2015 01.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →