Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri M.P.Purushothaman

Madras HC13 Jun 2022TCA/698/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue appeals under Section 260A challenging Tribunal's deletions of income additions. Counsel argued that Circular No.17/2019 bars appeals with tax effects below Rs.1 crore. The court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn while keeping the substantial questions of law open.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to CBDT Circular No.17/2019; substantial questions of law kept open.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri M.P.Purushothaman — Income Tax | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.06.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶7

T.C.A.Nos.698 to 702 of 2011

¶8

Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

¶9

Versus

¶10

M.P. Purushothaman

¶11

...Respondent in all TCAs

¶12

Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,“B” Bench, Chennai, dated 22.02.2008 in I.T.A.Nos.25, 18, 26, 19 and 27/Mds/2007 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-I, Chennai –600 034 dated 23.10.2006, 20.10.2006, 18.10.2006 made in I.T.A.No.30/06-07, 31/06-07, 33/06-07 PAN.AGMPP4159R and for the Assessment year 2004-2005, 2003-2004, 1989-99 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2)(i/c) chennai PAN/GIR/No.AGMPP4159R Range Central Circle 1(2), Chennai status Individual for the Assessment year 2004-2005, 2003-2004, 1989-99 respectively.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel in all TCAs

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶15

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶16

These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench, in I.TA.Nos. 25, 18, 26, 19 and 27/Mds/2007, relating to the assessment years 1998-99, 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 20042005 respectively.

¶17

2.By order dated 12.06.2012, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law:

¶18

T.C.A.No. 698 of 2011:

¶19

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.74 lakhs under the head unexplained investment under Section 69 when there is a prima facie finding from the materials seized, and the same being affirmed by the sworn statement of the witness-cum-the recipient of money involved?”

¶20

T.C.A.Nos.699 and 700 of 2011:

¶21

“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards alleged investment on unexplained gold jewellery?

¶22

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under the head income from house property when the assessee has not substantiated the lowering of the rent?”

¶23

T.C.A.Nos.701 and 702 of 2011:

¶24

“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash found in the possession of the assessee is not his undisclosed income, when the assessee has not satisfactorily explained the source?

¶25

¶26

3.When these 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, 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 these appeals is less than the threshold limit.

¶27

4.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.

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

psa/av

¶31

¶32

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench.

¶33

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2) (i/c), Chennai - 600 034.

¶35

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Chennai.

¶36

+1cc to M/s.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.34441

¶37

T.C.A.Nos.698 to 702 of 2011

¶38

AD(CO) RGA(12/07/2022)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri M.P.Purushothaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri M.P.Purushothaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/s. Mcml Train Control Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Latha Sundar

The Union of India Vs M/S. Caristahl Craftsman Enterprises Private Limited

K. Loganathan Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs the Joint Commissioner of

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.