The High Court dismissed an Income Tax appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, pursuant to Circular No.17/2019. The substantial questions of law were left open with liberty to restore the appeal if the tax effect exceeds the threshold.
Tax case appeal dismissed on account of low tax effect; substantial questions of law left 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 : 15.12.2020
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case Appeal No.324 of 2018
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Chennai ...Appellant/ Appellant Vs Shri T.R.Pachamuthu ...Respondent/ Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.10.2013 made in ITA.No.989/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2001-02 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II,46(Old No.108), Mahathma Gandhi Road,Chennai 34,dated 11.02.2013 in ITA.NO.90/2010-2011/ A II PAN NO.AHMPP3160 B for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 and against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Central Circle-1(3), Chennai 34 dated 16.12.2008 PAN/GIR NO.AAMPP 3160 B Ward/Circle/Range,Central circle -1(3),Chennai 4 status individual for the Assessment Year 2001-2002.
For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, JSC For Respondent: Mr.N.Devanathan
Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.N.Devanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
“i. Whether the ITAT was right in granting the relief when the assessee had given three different explanations at three different times without any proof of its claim by producing bills and vouchers?
ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has the assessee rebutted the presumption u/s. 132(4A) with regard to the seized material such that there is no cause for addition in his hands? and
iii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has discharged onus as well as burden of proof in establishing that the funds withdrawn at different points of time were only for construction activity of the society such that there is no case for addition in his hands ?”
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals II,
46(Old No.108), Mahathma Gandhi Road,Chennai 34
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Central Circle-1(3),Chennai 34
+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar , Advocate SR.No. 41055
TCA.No.324 of 2018
A.SK(21.01.2021)
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Chennai
Shri T.R. Pachamuthu
T.S. Sivagnanam
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
