COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. S. SINGARAVELAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the increased threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeals were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case before the Court to restore the appeals for hearing and decision on merits if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the penalty deletion and the assessee's version were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry, filed four appeals (TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2011-12. The appeals challenged the ITAT's deletion of penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent assessee, Shri S.Singaravelan, did not appear before the High Court. The Revenue stated that the appeals were 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.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified in deleting the penalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, when the assessee regularly violated the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269T of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the version of the assessee without any evidence that he has not borrowed and repaid any loan from the lender, when the lender made a categorical statement under oath that the assessee has borrowed and repaid loan in cash? The Revenue contended that the assessee had regularly violated Sections 269SS and 269T and that the Tribunal wrongly accepted the assessee's version without evidence, despite the lender's sworn statement. The judgment records no specific arguments from the assessee as they did not appear.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 271D,Section 271E,Section 269SS,Section 269T
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry, D.P. Thottam, Muthialpet, Puducherry - 605 003. ...Appellant Vs Shri S.Singaravelan ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 05.08.2014 made in ITA.Nos.1121 to 1124/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent : No appearance COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 05.08.2014 made in ITA.Nos.1121 to 1124/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2011-12. 3.The appeals were admitted on 01.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified by deleting the penalty levied under Sections 271D and under Section 271E of the Act, when the assessee regularly violated the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269T of the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in law accepting the version of the assessee without any evidence that he has not borrowed and repaid any loan from the lender, when the lender made categorical statement under oath that the assessee has borrowed and repaid loan in cash?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.803 to 806 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026