COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. S. ANANDAVADIVEL

PDF · subscribers
TCA/9/2022HC Madras19 January 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel 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/- (Rupees One Crore). The counsel submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit. In light of this submission, the Court dismissed the present appeals, finding that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry, filed four Tax Case Appeals (TCAs) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeals concerned assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07, and challenged the ITAT's deletion of penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The disputes arose from alleged violations of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were filed against respondents S. Anandavadivel and S. Saravanane.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee regularly violated the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269T of the Act? (Question of law) 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 the loan in cash? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, as the assessee had violated Sections 269SS and 269T. The Revenue also contended that the Tribunal wrongly accepted the assessee's version without evidence, despite the lender's sworn statement confirming cash transactions.

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

Tax Case Appeal Nos.9, 11, 13 & 19 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.01.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.9, 11, 13 and 19 of 2022 and CMP.Nos. 89, 115 & 183 of 2022 Commissioner of Income Tax Puducherry D.P. Thottam, Muthialpet Puducherry 605 003 .. Appellant in all TCAs Versus S. Anandavadivel

.. Respondent in TCA.Nos.9,13 and 19 of 2022 S. Saravanane

.. Respondent in TCA.No. 11 of 2022 Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “B” Bench, in I.T.A.Nos.1129, 1128, 1130 and 1132/Mds/2014. For Appellant : Mr.J. Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel (in all cases) 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.9, 11, 13 & 19 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1129, 1128, 1130 and 1132/Mds/2014, relating to the respective assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2004-05 and 2006-07, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified by deleting the penalty levied U/s.271D & U/s. 271E of the Act, when the assessee regularly violated the provisions of section 269SS and section 269T of the Income Tax Act? (ii) 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?” 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, 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.9, 11, 13 & 19 of 2022 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 is 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 petitions are closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 19.01.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No dhk 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos.9, 11, 13 & 19 of 2022 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. dhk To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Puducherry D.P. Thottam, Muthialpet Puducherry 605 003 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “B” Bench. Tax Case Appeal Nos. 9, 11, 13 and 19 of 2022 19.01.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →