Revenue filed a Tax Case Appeal challenging an ITAT order regarding penalty. The court dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs, keeping substantial questions of law open for future determination.
The appeal dismissed for not pressed due to tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs; substantial questions of law kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Tax Case Appeal No. 1186 of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle IV, Chennai. ... Appellant/Appellant Vs. Mrs.N.Meenakshi ... Respondent/Respondent ----Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.02.2009 made in ITA No. 508/Mds/2008, against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII Chennai dated 31/12/2007 in ITA No.4/07-08 against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range IV (I/C) Chennai, dated 20/3/2017 in PAN AHAPM2232M against the Assessment order dated 31/03/14 of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range III, Chennai for the Assessment Year 2004-05.
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the penalty is not sustainble ignoring the decision of the Apex Court in 306 Income Tax Return 277?;
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal contrary to the decision of the Apex Court, 251 Income Tax Return 99-SC, that after the introduction of explanation to Sec. 271, there is no question of proving mensrea?".
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsg
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Bench 'D', Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-VIII,
Main Building 2 nd Floor,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.
3.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range IV (I/C),Chennai-34.
4.The Additional Commissioner of Income Taxes
Range III, Chennai-34.
+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.9922
Tax Case Appeal No. 1186 of 2009
gj[co] srg 28/02/2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax
Mrs. N. Meenakshi
Vineet Kothari
C.V.Karthikyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
