Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr.L.Saravanan on 25 July, 2022
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Versus
Dr.L.Saravanan
... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the common order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1618/Chny/2018.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.407 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 common order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1618/Chny/2018,
relating to the assessment year 2009-10.
2.By order dated 28.07.2021, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions
made under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act especially
when the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of
T.K.Abubucker reported in 259 ITR Page 507 clearly held that
the even advance to shareholders for building construction
purposes which are later taken on loan by the Company and
such advances are to be set off against future rent, still was
held to be deemed dividend and the same was taxable under
the Income Tax Act?
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
(ii) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions
made Section 69/69A of the Income Tax Act by the CIT
(Appeals) in respect of powers conferred on him under section
251(1) for enhancement of income/assessment?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpura Coal
Syndicate Case reported in 53 ITR 225 (SC) wherein it was
held by the Three Judge Bench the powers of the CIT (Appeals)
are coterminous with the power of the assessing officer?"
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.
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
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,
keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an
appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
25.07.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
“C” Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
3. The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward-1(1),
Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
T.C.A.No.407 of 2021
25.07.2022
(5/6)
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
