Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Samson Foundations on 23 August, 2022
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Samson Foundations,
No.191, Demellow Road,
Choolai, Chennai - 600 112.
PAN : ADBFS 9862J ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2432/Chny/2018.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2432/Chny/2018, relating to the
assessment year 2015-16.
2.By order dated 22.03.2021, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in holding that the loss incurred by the assessee
on fictitious transactions in penny stock was genuine, when no valid
reason could be offered by the assessee for investment in such penny
stock, which did not yield any dividend nor the annual reports of
such companies show any major developments undertaken to show
the improved financials of the company?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the decision
of the Madras High Court in the case of Manish D.Jain (HUF)
reported in 122 Taxman 180 (Mad.) and that of Ms.Tara Kumari in
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
TCA.No.128 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019, which upheld the action of
the Department in penny stock issues? and
(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in not following the order from the Co-ordinate
Bench in the case of Smt.Rekha Jain in ITA.No.827/Chny/2019 dated
11.06.2019 and that of Harish Kumar (HUF) in
ITA.No.3009/Chny/2018 wherein on the facts and circumstances of
those cases, which are identical to the present case especially when
there is no change in the circumstances for taking a different view?"
3.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.
4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
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,
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an
appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
23.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
“B” Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
Non Corporate Circle 5 (1),
Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5,
Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
T.C.A.No.199 of 2021
23.08.2022
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
