COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI GOVINDAN CHOKKAPPAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The substantial question of law framed for the appeal was left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific finding of the Tribunal on the gift being exempt from tax was not adjudicated by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated February 22, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2014-2015 and concerned a gift received by the assessee, Shri Govindan Chokkappan. The appeal was admitted on August 28, 2018, on a substantial question of law regarding the taxability of the gift.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that a gift from a son's HUF to the assessee tantamount to a gift from a lineal descendant, thereby holding the gift exempt as being from a relative as defined in sub-clause (E) of clause (e) of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act? The Revenue argued that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.670 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.670 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. ...Appellant Vs Shri Govindan Chokkappan PAN: AADPC4278P ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1664/MDS/2017on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2014-2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent : Ms.G.Vardhini Karthik JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms.G.Vardhini Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.670 of 2018 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 22.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1664/MDS/2017on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2014-2015. 3.The appeal was admitted on 28.08.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that gift from son's HUF to the assessee tantamount to gift from a lineal descendant, thereby, holding that the gift is exempt, the same being from a relative as defined in sub-clause (E) of clause (e) of Sec. 56(2)(vii) of the Act?" 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 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. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.670 of 2018 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.670 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.670 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)
- Surekha Subhash Parve, Pune vs ITO Ward - 4(5), PuneITA 3137/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Hasumatiben Harkishanbhai Parmar, Surat vs ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), SuratITA 1467/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs PCIT, JaipurITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Anwar Hussain Karam Hussain Khan, Thane vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), ThaneITA 3191/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Sopna Rani Pandhy, Uttar Pradesh vs Income Tax, Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), GhaziabadITA 6453/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026