PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PURANI HOSPITALS SUPPLIES PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TCA/557/2023HC Madras15 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the matter was covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the substantial questions of law arising in the appeal were kept open to be decided at a later point of time. The Court made no order as to costs. The judgment does not provide findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law as decided by the ITAT, nor does it detail the ITAT's reasoning or the ratio decidendi for those questions.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated 31.05.2023. The ITAT's order was passed in ITA No.489/CHNY/2022. The assessee is M/s. Purani Hospitals Supplies Pvt. Ltd. The appeal concerns assessment years not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the ITAT's decision regarding additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the acceptance of demonetized currency. The procedural history indicates the appeal was admitted by the High Court on 27.11.2023 on substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that addition u/s 69 cannot be made merely for the reason that the assessee had accepted the demonetized currency in violation of the circular / notification issued by the Government of India and the RBI? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is justified in holding that there is no clarity in dealing with the specified Bank Notes from the date of demonetization to the appointed dated i.e. 31st December, 2016, when the GOI and RBI had clearly notified the exempted categories for transacting in SBN vide several notifications wherein the business model of the assessee is not included? The Revenue contended that the matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. No specific arguments from the assessee on the substantial questions of law are recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle – 2, Coimbatore. .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Purani Hospitals Supplies Pvt. Ltd. No.117, Sengupta Street, Ramnagar Coimbatore – 641 009 PAN: AADCP 0574G .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench,

Chennai

dated

31.05.2023

passed

in I.T.A.No.489/CHNY/2022. For the Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbara Aiyar Padmanaban JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The present tax case appeal was admitted on 27.11.2023 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that addition u/s 69 cannot be made merely for the reason that the assessee had accepted the demonetized currency in violation of the circular / notification issued by the Government of India and the RBI? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is justified in holding that there is no clarity in dealing with the specified Bank Notes from the date of demonetization to the appointed dated i.e. 31st December, 2016, when the GOI and RBI had clearly notified the exempted categories for transacting in SBN vide several notifications wherein the business model of the assessee is not included?" 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue that this matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per the recent Circular dated 17.09.2024, in Circular No.9/2024. Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 3. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed, as covered under the low tax effect and the substantial questions of law arising in this appeal are kept open to be decided at the later point of time. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 15.10.2024 Neutral Citation:Yes/No drm Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C. SARAVANAN

, J.

(drm) T.C.A.No.557 of 2023 15.10.2024 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →