Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Ramanathan Adaikalavan on 4 September, 2025
TCA No.170 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
TCA No.170 of 2025
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I
Coimbatore : Appellant
versus
Ramanathan Adaikalavan,
No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar,
Coimbatore 641 009
PAN AANPA 6846P : Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, dated 06.12.2024 in ITA
No.557/CHNY/2024.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Mahalingam,
Senior Standing counsel
For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskar
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
TCA No.170 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard the appeal on admission.
2. The Revenue has filed this appeal raising the following
substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the learned ITAT was right in quashing the
proceedings under Section 148 being bad in law
holding that, all documents comprising balance sheet,
profit & loss a/c of the assessee were submitted
before the Assessing Officer during original
assessment proceedings; whereas the assessee in the
return of income filed under Section 139 of the Act,
balance sheet, tax audit report under Section 44AB
submitted to the Department had not disclosed the
true nature of the asset sold?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the learned ITAT was right in quashing the
re-assessment proceedings reopened based on the
information on the capital asset received by the
Assessing Officer after completion of the original
assessment under Section 143(3) where one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
reason for CASS selection was low capital gain w.r.t
sale consideration as returned by the assessee in the
return of income under the head long term capital
gain and the Assessing Officer had scrutinized the
details submitted by the assessee under the head
LTCG based on the documents submitted by the
assessee and information available with the Assessing
Officer, during the assessment proceedings under
Section 143(3) of the IT Act?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the learned ITAT is perverse to the facts
and circumstances of the case?”
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the
Tribunal has acted perversely against the legal position, that present
was not a case of reopening based on new information but only
change of opinion. He would further submit that at the time of scrutiny
assessment, the schedule with regard to the assessee's investments
escaped the attention of the Assessing Officer and later on, it was
found that the assessee could not have claimed benefits arising out of
the long term capital gain in view of various transactions made.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
4. We find that the learned Tribunal has gone through the
contents of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act which only
requires certain information which were available earlier before the
Assessing officer at the time of making assessment.
5. Therefore, it is apparently clear that the basis for reopening
was change of opinion and not new information. Therefore, no
question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
04.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I
Coimbatore
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras “B” Bench, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(tar)
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 03:51:57 pm )
