THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

PDF · subscribers
TCA/586/2021HC Madras15 December 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, 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 Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. Therefore, there is no finding on the merits of the additions or deletions made by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning the cost of construction, unexplained investments in gold jewellery, marriage expenses, cost of construction of a temple, and unexplained investments in M/s. Hotel Nagas Private Limited. The appeal was filed against Shri S. Krishnamoorthy for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being under challenge.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made towards the cost of construction, which was the difference between the value of the construction offered by the Assessee and the DVO? (Section 69/69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, likely relevant) 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions relating to unexplained investments in gold jewellery, marriage expenses, and cost of construction of a temple, which were on the basis of the Assessee's own statement? (Section 69/69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, likely relevant) 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the deletion made by the CIT (Appeals) of Rs.2.10 lakhs relating to the unexplained investments in M/s. Hotel Nagas Private Limited on the basis of the order passed in the assessee's appeal? (Section 69/69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, likely relevant) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the Tribunal was incorrect in deleting the additions as per the substantial questions of law raised. However, the Revenue later brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, stating that appeals shall not be filed/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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 69,Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem. ...Appellant Vs. Shri S.Krishnamoorthy 86-A Tiruchy Main Road Seelanaickenpatty Salem – 600 201.

... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench, in I.T. (SS)A. No. 50/Mds/2001.

For Appellant : Mr. M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.(SS) A. No.50/Mds/2001, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting in the additions made towards the cost of construction, which was the difference between the value of the construction offered by the Assessee and the DVO? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions relating to the unexplained investments in gold jewellery, marriage expenses and cost of construction of temple, which were on the basis of the Assessee's own statement? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the deletion made by the CIT (Appeals) of Rs.2.10 lakhs relating to the unexplained investments in M/s. Hotel Nagas Private Limited on the basis of the orer passed in the assessee's appeal? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 2. 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. 3. 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, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate cases. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 15.12.2021

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Maya 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya To The Commissioner of Income Tax Salem. Tax Case Appeal No. 586 of 2021 Dated : 15.12.2021 4/4 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 →