THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI R. RAVISHANKAR

PDF · subscribers
TCA/415/2021HC Madras11 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The counsel submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was below this threshold limit. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law are kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2011-12 and concerned the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on 29.07.2021, based on a substantial question of law. The respondent, Shri R. Ravishankar, did not appear before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act when the assessee could not explain the source of the investments made and thus not discharged the initial burden upon him? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the respondent did not appear. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition under Section 69A because the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of explaining the source of investments. The Revenue relied on the principle that the burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the source of unexplained investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.415 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD T.C.A.No.415 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy. ... Appellant

Versus Shri R. Ravishankar ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel M/s.V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.415 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 order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1731/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2011-12. 2.By order dated 29.07.2021, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act when the assessee could not explain the source of the investments made and thus not discharged the initial burden upon him?" 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 Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.415 of 2021 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. [R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 11.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – I (1), Trichy.

Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.415 of 2021 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Tiruchirapalli. R. MAHADEVAN,

and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

, J.

av T.C.A.No.415 of 2021 11.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →