PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.TALENT ALLOYS PRIVATE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal on the grounds of tax effect, citing Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates a monetary limit of Rs.1 crore for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was less than this limit. However, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect is found to be above the prescribed limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Coimbatore, filed a Tax Case Appeal against an order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The ITAT had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, M/s.Talent Alloys Private Ltd., against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment years under challenge are 1987-88 to 1996-97. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the Tribunal's reliance on a High Court judgment and the assessee's burden of proof regarding share application money.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Tribunal was correct in relying on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., when the facts of the instant case (cash payments without supporting documents) were distinguishable from the cited case (banking channel payments)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the ITAT failed to consider that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the applicants, and genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore and is covered by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which fixes the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court at Rs.1 crore. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.01.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.12745 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
... Appellant Vs M/s.Talent Alloys Private Ltd., No.36/99, Rajaji Road, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore - 641 009. PAN: AAB CT 0943 R ...Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21.09.2016 in I.T (SS) No.144/Mds/2006 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 1987-88 to 1996-97. For Appellant : Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel. For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar. 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.626 of 2018
J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) This tax case appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.09.2016 in I.T (SS) No.144/Mds/2006 in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 2.Heard Mr.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3.This tax case appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in relying upon the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd when the cited case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case as the share application money received in the cited case was through banking channels while the payments in the instant case were made in cash with no supporting documents? 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 (ii)Whether the ITAT has failed to consider that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the applicants and genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer?" 4. Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore and is covered by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi. As per the said circular, the monetary limit to file an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs.1 crore. In this case, tax effect is less than Rs.1 crore and therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed. 5.This Court perused the circular dated 08.08.2019 and Paragraph No.2 of the Circular, which prescribes monetary limit for filing appeal. Paragraph No.2 is usefully extracted as follows: 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 "2.As a step towards further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows: S.No. Appeals / SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appeallate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000" 6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on account of tax effect. However, the substantial questions of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.) 24.01.2020 ay To Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN, J. ay T.C.A.No.626 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.12745 of 2018 Dated:24.01.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026