COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. P. VENKATESAN

TCA/952/2019HC Madras26 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, 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's counsel further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the agricultural nature of the land or the inconsistency of the Tribunal's orders were not adjudicated on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-IX, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2009-10 and concerned the classification of land sold by the assessee, Shri P. Venkatesan, as agricultural land. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's finding that the land was agricultural, questioning the absence of irrigation facilities and alleged inconsistency in the Tribunal's findings for similar lands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in classifying the land sold by the assessee as agricultural land, despite it being Manavari land without irrigation facilities such as a river, pump set, lake, or well? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the land sold by the assessee as agricultural land, given that the Tribunal's findings for different assessees concerning the same land were inconsistent? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the land was not agricultural due to the absence of irrigation facilities. It also contended that the Tribunal's findings were inconsistent for the same land across different assessees. The Revenue relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, stating that appeals should not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.952 of 2019 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.952 of 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-IX, Chennai. ... Appellant Versus Shri P.Venkatesan, 30, Balaji Nagar, IInd Street, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. ... Respondent (PAN No.ACAPV3015C) Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, dated 13.11.2017 in I.TA.No.699/Mds/2013. For Appellant : M/s.M.Swaminathan &

V. Pushpa Standing Counsel Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.952 of 2019 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 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.699/Mds/2013, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the land sold by the assessee are agricultural land when the said land was a Manavari land and no irrigation facility like river, pump set, lake and well were available? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the land sold by the assessee is agricultural land when the findings of the Tribunal are different for different assessee for the same land? " 2. 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. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.952 of 2019 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.952 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward-IX (III), Chennai - 600 006. T.C.A.No.952 of 2019 26.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →