M/S.JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that no question of law was required to be framed. Taking into account that the appellant had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,80,28,000/-, the Court, in the interest of justice, directed the appellant to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- within one week from the date of receiving the order copy as a condition for staying the proceedings. Upon compliance with this condition and filing proof of payment before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within three months. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with these conditions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s. Jaya Educational Trust, filed its income tax return for Assessment Year 2016-2017 declaring 'Nil' income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption under Section 11(2) and assessed the income at Rs. 32,52,27,918/-, with a tax liability of Rs. 13,90,98,318/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed this order. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax granted a payment schedule in installments from October 2019 to March 2020. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and sought a stay of the order. The ITAT dismissed the stay petition. The assessee then filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order dismissing the stay petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the stay petition without deciding it on merits, especially when the assessee had already deposited a substantial amount (more than 20% of the claimed amount)? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that there was no tax liability and no necessity to pay the disputed amount. They contended that the stay petition should have been decided on merits as they had already deposited Rs. 2,80,28,000/-. They also pointed out that the Tribunal's order erroneously stated that nothing had been paid, and they provided proof of payments totaling Rs. 2,53,00,000/- plus Rs. 27,00,000/-. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the entire amount was liable to be paid. They submitted that the installment facility granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had not been utilized by the appellant and that the appellant had not pleaded financial hardship.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.11.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 M/s.Jaya Educational Trust, No.8, II Main Road, Krishnapuram, C T H Road, Thiruninravur, Chennai - 602 024.
... Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Income Tax Office, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ...Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.10.2019 in Stay Petition No.290/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2016-2017. For Appellant : Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel.
1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of dismissal of stay petition filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal. 2.The appellant filed income tax return for the assessment year 2016-2017, declaring 'Nil' income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and after enquiry, the assessing officer disallowed the exemption under Section 11 (2) of the Income Tax Act and assessed the income to the tune of Rs.32,52,27,918/- and tax to the tune of Rs.13,90,98,318/-. 3. Against the said order, an appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax has also confirmed the order of the assessing officer and dismissed the appeal. Hence, a representation has been made before the Principal 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, by order dated 25.09.2019, gave a time schedule to the appellant to pay the amount in equal monthly installments viz., 2,00,00,000/- commencing from the month of October 2019 till February 2020 and the balance amount of 1,10,70,318/- as last payment including interest payable in the month of March 2020 on or before 15.03.2020. 4.The said order is being challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal. In the said appeal, an application for stay of the order passed by the authorities has been taken out. The said stay petition is dismissed. Against the dismissal of the stay petition, the present appeal has been filed. 5.Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no tax liability on the part of the appellant and there is no necessity to pay the amount and the stay petition should have been decided on merits as the appellant already deposited a sum of Rs.2,80,28,000/- out of Rs.13,90,98,318/- which is more than 20% of the claimed amount. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 6.However, Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the entire amount is liable to be paid by the appellant. Moreover, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had already granted time to pay the amount in installments starting from October 2019 to March 2020 and submitted that the opportunity given has not been utilized by the appellant. He would further contend that the appellant has not pleaded anywhere that he is suffering from financial hardship. 7.In reply, Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned Counsel for the appellant would find fault with the order passed by the Tribunal which gave a finding as if nothing has been paid by the appellant and has submitted a proof for having paid the amount on various dates viz., 12.02.2019, 20.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 to the tune of Rs.2,53,00,000/- in addition to Rs.27,00,000/- which has already said to have been paid by the appellant. 8.After hearing the parties, this Court finds that no question of law is required to be framed in this case. However, taking note of the 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 fact that the appellant has already said to have paid a sum of Rs.2,80,28,000/-, in the interest of justice, this Court directs the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order as a condition to stay the proceedings. 9.On compliance of the above condition imposed by this Court by the appellant and on filing a proof for the same by the appellant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months thereon. 10.With the above conditions, this Tax Case Appeal is disposed of. No costs. (N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.) 14.11.2019 ay Note: Registry is directed to issue order copy on 15.11.2019. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.902 of 2019 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN, J. ay To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Income Tax Office, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
T.C.A.No.902 of 2019
Dated:14.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026