Chennai v. R.natesan

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.297 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. Chennai....AppellantVsR.Natesan...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 19.12.2014 made in ITA.No.75/MDS/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10 and against the o/o Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)VI, Chennai 34 and made in I.T.A. No.1564/13-14/A-VI dated 14.11.2013 and against the O/o Income TaxBusiness Ward XV(4) Chennai 34 and made in PAN. dated29.06.2012. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated19.12.2014 made in ITA.No.75/MDS/2014 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessmentyear 2009-10. 3.The appeal was admitted on 07.07.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in deleting penalty levied under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the ground of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable cause for filing inaccurate particularsof income when the provisions of the Act does notprovide immunity from penalty on account ofreasonable cause? ii) Is not the finding the Tribunal that therewas reasonable cause for failure on the part of theassessee wrong in the light of the categoricalfinding of the assessing authority that theassessee's explanation was false and incorrect andthat the assessee's default came to light only dueto the case being selected for scrutiny and AIRinformation regarding sale of property by theassessee? iii) Is not the order of the Tribunal deletingpenalty on ground of reasonable cause perverse whenthe Supreme Court has in the case of DharmendraTextile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277 held thatpenalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liabilityand willful concealment is not an essentialingredient for attracting the same?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar cse https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)VI, Chennai 34.(Appeals)VI, Chennai 34. 3.The Income Tax OfficerBusiness Ward XV(4)Chennai 34.Business Ward XV(4)Chennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 73324. TCA.No.297 of 2015RR(CO)SP(07/11/2019)