PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI R. VIJAY KRISHNAN

PDF · subscribers
TCA/829/2017HC Madras26 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2012-13 and challenged the ITAT's decision to grant the assessee, Shri R. Vijay Krishnan, exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. The core of the dispute involved the completion of a residential building under construction within the stipulated period for claiming such exemptions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of a residential building under construction, despite it not being completed within the stipulated period of three years as provided under Section 54(1) of the Act (i.e., before June 2014/December 2014)? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in granting exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act when the Assessing Officer's inspection report dated 05.03.2015 indicated that construction was in progress, only pillars/columns were raised, and no residential building was available as of that date, and further, Building Planning Permission was obtained from CMDA only on 14.03.2014? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the residential building was not completed within the stipulated period for claiming exemption under Sections 54 and 54F. They relied on an inspection report showing incomplete construction and a delayed Building Planning Permission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 54,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant Versus Shri R.Vijay Krishnan, No.17A-2, Sai Krupa Apartments, Main Road, Adyar, Chennai. ... Respondent (PAN No.ABBPV9714C) Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 28.06.2017 in I.TA.No.3168/Mds/2016. For Appellant : M/s.M.Swaminathan &

S.Premalatha Standing Counsel Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench in I.T.A.No.3168/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. By order dated 20.02.2018, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 and 54F of Income Tax Act in respect of the residential building under construction despite the same having not completed within the stipulated period of three years as provided Section 54(1) of the Act namely before the June 2014/December 2014? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in granting exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of Income Tax Act when the Assessing Officer has referred to the inspection report dated 05.03.2015 which clearly states that the construction was in progress and the assessee has only raised the pillars / columns and no residential building is available as on that date and further Building Planning Permission was obtained from CMDA only on 14.03.2014? Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 3. When the matter was 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 appeal 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 this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 26.08.2022 r n s

Internet : Yes.

Index : Yes / No. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-15, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-15(1), Chennai - 600 034. T.C.A.No.829 of 2017 26.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →