Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs J.Ramu on 7 February, 2022
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
T.C.A.Nos.1389, 1390,1391,1392,1393 & 1394 of 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax-I
Tiruchirapalli ... Appellant in all T.C.As
Versus
J.Ramu ... Respondent in all T.C.As
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench,
dated 30.10.2009 in I.TA.Nos.277,278,279,280,281 & 282/Mds/2009.
For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa,
in all T.C.As Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar
in all T.C.As
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
COMMONJUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Bench 'C', Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.277,278,279,280,281&
282/Mds/2009, relating to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001,2001-
2002,2002-2003,2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
2.By order dated 21.02.2011, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeals on the following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
confirming that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) computing the unexplained investment in money
lending on the basis of the amounts for which the assessee had
filed complaints before the Courts under the Negotiable
Instruments Act for cheques issued by the debtors which got
dishonoured? And
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax appellate Tribunal was right in holding that
there was no violation of Rule 46A by the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) on the assumption that the entire
material was sent to the Assessing Officer and without
considering the specific instance of additional evidence in the
matter of cases filed by the assessee's associates in respect of
which the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not give
any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine fresh
evidence admitted by him?”
3.When the 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 this appeals are less than the threshold limit.
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue, these 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.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
07.02.2022
vm
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
To
1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I
Tiruchirapalli
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, “C” Bench.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Larger Taxpayer Unit, Chennai.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1389 to 1394 of 2010
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
vm
T.C.A.Nos.1389, 1390,1391,
1392,1393 & 1394 of 2011
07.02.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
