THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. T.VEDAGIRISWARA RAO

PDF · subscribers
TCA/638/2016HC Madras2026/MHC/412706 October 2026Bench: Honourable Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reasons for dismissal were twofold: firstly, the persistent failure to complete service of notice on the respondent-assessee despite several opportunities and reiterations of notice. Secondly, the Court noted that the tax demand of Rs.13,06,940/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 was below the monetary threshold stipulated under Circular No.9 of 2024, which governs the pecuniary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, which were not even formulated or argued, remained unanswered. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 07.01.2016. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08 and challenges an assessment order dated 31.01.2014, which raised a tax demand of Rs.13,06,940/-. The High Court noted that the appeal was admitted on 28.09.2016, and despite multiple notices and opportunities, service on the respondent-assessee, T. Vedagiriswara Rao, remained incomplete. The Court also observed that the tax demand was below the monetary threshold stipulated under Circular No.9 of 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, filed by the Revenue, is maintainable given the incomplete service on the respondent-assessee and the fact that the tax demand falls below the monetary threshold for appeals as per CBDT Circular No.9 of 2024. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee as service was incomplete and the matter was decided on procedural grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue filed the appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to challenge the ITAT's order. Their primary argument would implicitly be that the ITAT's order was erroneous, warranting High Court intervention. However, the judgment does not detail specific arguments presented by the Revenue beyond filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2026:MHC:4127 TCA No. 638 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR TCA No. 638 of 2016 CNR:{HCMA010964192016} The Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai. ..Appellant(s) Vs T.Vedagiriswara Rao No.19, Chinnathambi Mudali Street, Chennai-600 079. PAN – AABPR 7055F ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Chennai dated 07.01.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1431/Mds/2015 for A.Y. 2007-08. For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent(s): Not ready in Notice Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) This appeal was admitted on 28.09.2016 and notice was issued along with private notice. On 03.12.2018, notice was reiterated and learned counsel for the __________ Page 1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm ) 2026:MHC:4127 TCA No. 638 of 2016 appellant were also permitted to serve the counsel who appeared for the respondent/assessee before the Tribunal and file proof of service. Again on 17.12.2018, notice was permitted. When the matter is called today, we find that service is still incomplete and the cause-list and the service report indicates that the 3rd batta is due. 2. That apart, incidentally we find that the tax demand under order of assessment dated 31.01.2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08 is Rs.13,06,940/- which is below the monetary threshold as stipulated under Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, this Tax Case (Appeal) is dismissed returning the substantial questions of law unanswered. No costs. (A.S.M.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 06-10-2026 mpl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Chennai. __________ Page 2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm ) 2026:MHC:4127 TCA No. 638 of 2016 DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. mpl TCA No. 638 of 2016 06-10-2026 __________ Page 3 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →