PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF WE vs. SHRI ARAVIND NANDAGOPAL

TCA/797/2019HC Madras13 December 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this stipulated threshold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, in light of the Revenue's submission about the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2, Chennai (Revenue) against the common order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Chennai. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment years 2011-12 and 2010-11, concerning appeals filed by Shri Aravind Nandagopal (Assessee). The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to cancel the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. The High Court was considering these appeals along with CMP.No.22271 of 2019.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act because the Assessing Officer did not clearly specify in the penalty notice whether the proceedings were for 'concealed the particulars of wealth' or 'furnished inaccurate particulars of such wealth'. 2. Whether the Tribunal's decision was justifiable in not following its own prior ruling in the case of S. Anandalakshmi (ITA No.1948/Mds/2016, dated 17.10.2017) by the 'C' Bench of ITAT, Chennai. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued the substantial questions of law as stated above. Additionally, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this threshold.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 18(1)(c),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034.

...Appellant in both cases -vs- Shri.Aravind Nandagopal, No.6, 6th Street, Rutland Gate, Chennai 600 006. PAN:AAFPA6259G ...Respondent in both cases Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai, in W.T.A.Nos.41 and 40 /Chny/2018. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel in both cases 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in W.T.A.Nos.41 & 40 /Chny/2018, relating to the assessment years 2011-12 & 2010-11, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the Penalty levied under Section 18[1][c] of the Wealth Tax Act on the ground the Assessing Officer has not clearly indicated that the proceedings were initiated either for 'concealed the particulars of wealth' or 'furnished inaccurate particulars of such wealth' in the penalty notice? (ii) Whether, the act of the Tribunal is justifiable by not following its own decision rendered by the 'C' Bench of ITAT, Chennai in the case of S.Anandalakshmi in ITA No.1948/Mds/2016, dated 17.10.2017? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019 2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, 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). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals are less than the threshold limit. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 13.12.2021

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2019 and CMP.No.22271 of 2019 13.12.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →