COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. A.KRISHNAVENI CONSTRUCTIONS

PDF · subscribers
TCA/738/2017HC Madras29 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs.1 Crore for appeals to the High Court. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was expressly left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward I(1), Madurai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench, in ITA No.35/Mds/2017. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2007-08 and concerned M/s.A.Krishnaveni Constructions, Madurai. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. However, the Revenue later sought to withdraw the appeal 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether TDS remitted into the Government account by the assessee before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be considered as due payment of tax, as held by the learned Tribunal? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. The assessee did not appear before the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.738 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 No.738 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward I(1), Madurai. .. Appellant -vs- M/s.A.Krishnaveni Constructions, 1/354-2, Ramasamy Nagar, Thirumalpuram, Madurai-625 014. PAN: AAJFA 1965D .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 05.05.2017, made in I.T.A.No.35/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.738 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 05.05.2017, made in I.T.A.No.35/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08. 2.The appeal has been admitted on 02.01.2018, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether TDS remitted into the Government account by the assessee before the due date of filing return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be considered as due payment of tax, as held by the learned Tribunal?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. 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 08.08.2019 issued by the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.738 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 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.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 1.M/s.A.Krishnaveni Constructions, 1/354-2, Ramasamy Nagar, Thirumalpuram, Madurai-625 014. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.738 of 2017 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.No.738 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →