THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. L.SARAVANAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law themselves, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the tax effect.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2013-14 and challenged the ITAT's deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals should 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 the Tribunal was correct in deleting additions made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, considering the Madras High Court's decision in T.K. Abubucker (259 ITR 507) regarding advances to shareholders for building construction being treated as deemed dividend. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting additions made under Section 69/69A of the Income Tax Act by the CIT (Appeals) exercising powers under Section 251(1) for enhancement of income. 3. Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the Supreme Court's decision in Kanpura Coal Syndicate Case (53 ITR 225) regarding the powers of the CIT (Appeals) being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The tax effect in the appeal is less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and therefore, the appeal should not be pursued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 2(22)(e),Section 69,Section 69A,Section 251(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.07.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant
Versus Dr.L.Saravanan
... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1622/Chny/2018. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 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 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1622/Chny/2018, relating to the assessment year 2013-14. 2.By order dated 28.07.2021, 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 Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions made under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act especially when the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of T.K.Abubucker reported in 259 ITR Page 507 clearly held that the even advance to shareholders for building construction purposes which are later taken on loan by the Company and such advances are to be set off against future rent, still was held to be deemed dividend and the same was taxable under the Income Tax Act? Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 (ii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions made Section 69/69A of the Income Tax Act by the CIT (Appeals) in respect of powers conferred on him under section 251(1) for enhancement of income/assessment? (iii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpura Coal Syndicate Case reported in 53 ITR 225 (SC) wherein it was held by the Three Judge Bench the powers of the CIT (Appeals) are coterminous with the power of the assessing officer?" 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. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 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. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 25.07.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.
The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av T.C.A.No.406 of 2021 25.07.2022 (4/6) Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)
- Sindhu Farms Pvt Ltd, Gurugram vs DCIT, RohtakITA 8194/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 5 3 2 Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan…ITA 911/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Pranav Prakashchandra Kansara, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 5 3 2 Ahmedabad, Aayakar Bhavan…ITA 911/AHD/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- M/S. Jsw Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6051/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S. Jsw Cement Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4867/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026