COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. SHRIRAM EPC LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the substantial question of law framed, which concerned the leviability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Instead, the Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore, and the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold. The Court left the substantial question of law open and granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed two appeals (T.C.A.Nos.642 & 643 of 2017) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'D' Bench, Chennai. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the leviability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the assessee, M/s.Shriram EPC Ltd. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not leviable on the assessee? The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in its finding regarding the non-leviability of the penalty. The specific grounds for this argument are not detailed in the judgment. The Assessee, M/s.Shriram EPC Ltd., argued that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The specific grounds for this argument are not detailed in the judgment. However, the primary reason for the disposal of the appeals was not the merits of these arguments but a subsequent development.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.642 & 643 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.642 and 643 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.16312 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant in both Appeals -vs- M/s.Shriram EPC Ltd., 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, 1st Floor, R.A.Building, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. PAN: AAFCS 1410 C .. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 18.12.2015, made in I.T.A.Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman (In both Appeals) ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.642 & 643 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 18.12.2015, made in I.T.A.Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 2.The appeals have been filed raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable on the assessee?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent. 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 issued by the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.642 & 643 of 2017 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 these cases is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 1.M/s.Shriram EPC Ltd., 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, 1st Floor, R.A.Building, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.642 & 643 of 2017 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.Nos.642 and 643 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- 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
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026