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

PDF · subscribers
TCA/393/2015HC Madras01 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, while acknowledging the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue, accepted the submission that the tax effect in the case was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal on the ground of low tax effect. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law is kept open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The Tribunal's order quashing the revision orders under Section 263 as infructuous was not adjudicated on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Central Circle, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated May 18, 2011, in ITA No.1801/Mds/2010. The assessee is M/s. Handloom Heritage Limited. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law. However, during the proceedings, the Revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the instant case is below the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals. Consequently, the High Court was requested to dispose of the appeal 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? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the appeal raises a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's decision to quash revision orders under Section 263 as infructuous. However, the Revenue also submitted that the tax effect in the present case is below the monetary limit for appeals, and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of without deciding the substantial question of law.

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.393 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.393 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.1801/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.393 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.393 of 2015 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.393 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.393 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 →