COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.AMAR NARAYANA REDDY

TCA/764/2017HC Madras30 October 2019Bench: Hon`ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019. This circular stipulated that appeals shall not be filed or 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). In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law was kept open for determination in appropriate cases.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'D' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2010-11 and concerned the classification of land transferred by the assessee, Shri S. Amar Narayana Reddy. The Revenue questioned the Tribunal's finding that the land was agricultural, arguing that the assessee had not produced evidence of agricultural operations. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the law and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the land transferred was agricultural land even though the assessee didn't produce any evidence of carrying out agriculture operations on the said land? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of agricultural land and evidence requirements). 2. Whether such order of the Tribunal is perverse both on facts and law? (Question of law, concerning perversity of findings). Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that the Tribunal erred in classifying the land as agricultural without evidence of agricultural operations and that the Tribunal's order was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Judgment dt. 30.10.2019 in TC(A) No.764 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri S.Amar Narayana Reddy IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.10.2019 CORAM : THE HON'BLE DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.764 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .. Appellant v. Shri S.Amar Narayana Reddy .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1263/mds/2015. For Appellant For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Sr.Standing Counsel Mr.M.P.Senthil KUmar __________ Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 30.10.2019 in TC(A) No.764 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri S.Amar Narayana Reddy 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, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.07.2016, for the Assessment Year 2010-11, by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the law and the facts and circumstances of the case and grounds raised herein, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the land transferred was agricultural land even though assessee didn't produce any evidence of carrying out agriculture operations on the said land and whether such order of Tribunal is perverse both on facts and law?” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Senior 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 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). __________ Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 30.10.2019 in TC(A) No.764 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri S.Amar Narayana Reddy 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 question of law for determination in appropriate cases.

(V.K.,ACJ.) (C.S.N.,J.) 30.10.2019 Index : No msk To: 1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. __________ Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment dt. 30.10.2019 in TC(A) No.764 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri S.Amar Narayana Reddy THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND C.SARAVANAN, J. msk

Tax Case (Appeal) No.764 of 2017 30.10.2019 __________ Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →