COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R.SASIRUPA

PDF · subscribers
TCA/737/2019HC Madras03 October 2019Bench: HON'BLE DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon being apprised of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, noted that the tax effect in the present case was less than this stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No decision was rendered on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2007-2008 and concerns the addition made by the assessing officer towards deferred income and the subsequent levy of penalty. The High Court of Judicature at Madras was hearing the appeal. The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice a CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer towards deferred income? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether based on the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that there was no willful or deliberate suppression of facts or any inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the levy of penalty, there should be a willful or deliberate suppression of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? (Question of law, concerning Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Judgment dt. 03.10.2019 in TC(A) No.737 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.Sasirupa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.10.2019 CORAM : THE HON'BLE DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.737 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore. .. Appellant v. R.Sasirupa .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.5.2012 made in ITA.No.1393/Mds/2011. For Appellant : Ms.J.G.Usha Rani Jr. Standing Counsel for M/s.N.V.Balaji JUDGMENT (Delivered by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.5.2012, for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, by raising the following substantial __________ Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 03.10.2019 in TC(A) No.737 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.Sasirupa questions of law: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer towards deferred income? 2. Whether based on the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that there was no willful or deliberate suppression of facts or any inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for levy of penalty, there should be a willful or deliberate suppression of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income?” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Junior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be __________ Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 03.10.2019 in TC(A) No.737 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.Sasirupa 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). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and, therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.

(V.K.,ACJ.) (C.S.N.,J.) 03.10.2019 Index : No sasi To: 1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I Coimbatore. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle III, Coimbatore. __________ Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 03.10.2019 in TC(A) No.737 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.Sasirupa THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND C.SARAVANAN, J. sasi

Tax Case (Appeal) No.737 of 2019 03.10.2019 __________ Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →