PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.JAYAEDUCATIONAL TRUST

PDF · subscribers
TCA/583/2016HC Madras30 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's submission was based on the increased monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were expressly left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated January 22, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2007-08 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding penalty proceedings against the assessee, M/s. Jaya Educational Trust. The High Court admitted the appeal on specific substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, citing a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding low tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B for not disclosing income in the original return and consequently granting relief based on such a presumption? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in not considering the non-compliance with the provisions of Explanation 5(b)(2) to Section 271(1)(c), making the assessee liable for penalty under that section? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The appeal is not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case is below this threshold.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.583 of 2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.583 of 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Jaya Educational Trust, Thiruninravur-602024. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.1.2016 made in ITA.No.1359/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.583 of 2016 respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 22.1.2016 made in ITA.No. 1359/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The appeal was admitted on 07.12.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B for not disclosing the income in the original return and consequently in granting relief based on such assumed presumption ? and ii. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in not considering the fact that there is non compliance within the provisions of Explanation 5(b)(2) to Section 271(1)(c) and therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty under the provisions of that Section ?" 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.583 of 2016 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. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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.) 30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.583 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.583 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →