Income Tax appeals from 2007 could not be heard as the Department failed to produce the Section 154 order and appellate orders despite adjournments. After paying imposed costs, the Department instructed dismissal on grounds of low tax effect; the Court dismissed the appeals without costs, reserving the question of law.
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.
2024:MHC:3308
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai
... Appellant in all T.C.'s
Vs
M/s GEC Alsthom India Ltd 314-315 Anna Salai Chennai 600 018 ... Respondent in all T.C.'s COMMON PRAYER: APPEAL filed under Section 260 A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 22.08.2005 passed in I.T.A.Nos.723/MDS/1997, 724/MDS/1997 and 1865/MDS/1996 for the block periods 1991-1992, 1992 – 1993 and 1992 – 1993 respectively on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench.
In all T.C.'s For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance
C O M M O N J U D G M EN T
Page No.1/4
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with order dated
22.08.2024 which reads as follows:
Despite the appeals being of the year 2007, we were constrained, on the last date of hearing, to record that the appeals were deficient, as the order under Section 154 and appellate orders are not available on record. At request of Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department we had adjourned the matter to today to enable the Department to make good the defects.
2. Even today, the appellant is not ready with either the original or appellate order which makes it impossible for us to hear the appeals. Though we are inclined to close the appeals as not maintainable, since a final opportunity is sought, the appellants are put to terms for the delay in compliance, and bearing in mind the age of the appeals, and will remit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to High Court Legal Services Authority within a week from today. Memo of costs be placed on file.
3. List on 27.08.2024 as item 1. It is made clear that if the order under Section 154 and appellate order are not produced then, the appeals will be closed in limine.
Income Tax Department files three memos. Vide 2 memos, both dated 27.08.2024, the Income Tax Department confirms compliance with the directions to pay costs.
effect that the Tax Cases may be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, as in T.C.No.1020 of 2007, relating to assessment year 1991-92, the tax effect is Rs.4,15,411/- and in T.C. Nos.1021 and 1022 of 2007, relating to assessment
year 1992-93, the tax effect is Rs.4,50,942/-.
Page No.2/4
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
case, these Tax Cases are dismissed. No costs.
(A.S.M.,J) (G.A.M.,J) 27.08.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes sl To
Page No.3/4
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
sl
T.C.Nos.1020, 1021 and 1022 of 2007
27.08.2024
Page No.4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tax appeals should be dismissed for low tax effect given the Department's instruction and failure to produce the orders under challenge.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai
M/s GEC Alsthom India Ltd 314-315 Anna Salai Chennai 600 018
Anita Sumanth
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
