THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SMT V.P.SAFIA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular raised the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in the present case was stated to be below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed for the appeal was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated March 21, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2008-09 and challenged the ITAT's finding that the Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was improper. The High Court of Judicature at Madras admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. The respondent, Smt. V.P. Safia, did not appear before the High Court. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was not proper? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the respondent did not appear. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.578 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.578 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Smt.V.P.Safia ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21.03.2014 made in ITA.No.367/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2015 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 21.03.2014 made in ITA.No.367/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. 3.The appeal was admitted on 28.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was not proper? 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2015 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.578 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026