Commissioner Of Income Tax Salem v. Shri. P.raghunathan
High Court
29 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax Salem v. Shri. P.raghunathan
Date of order
29 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax Salem v. Shri. P.raghunathan, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the said submissions made by the learnedcounsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, the present taxcase appeals stand dismissed, as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.1.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENAND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
T.C.A.No.1272 of 2010, T.C.A.No.1273 of 2010,T.C.A.No.1274 of 2010 and T.C.A.No.1275 of 2010
T.C.A.No.1272 of 2010:
Commissioner of Income TaxSalem
.. Appellant/RespondentVersus
Shri. P.RaghunathanProp: Sri Amman Trading Co.,No.2 A.A. RoadNear Shanthi TheatreSalem - 1
.. Respondent/Appellant(in TCA1272 & 1273 of 2010)
R.vasanthiPro.Sri.Amman Trading CO No.2 AA Road,Salem 1.
.. Respondent/Appellant(in TCA1274 & 1275 of 2010)
Prayer: Appeal has been filed against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench, 'D' in TCA 1282 & 1273 of2010 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Salem dated 30.11.2006 and made in ITA No.40/2006-07against the order of the Income Tax Officer, I/c Ward I(1),Salem dated 31.03.2003 in PaN/aIR.No.11PR 0369 for theAssessment year 2003-2004 in TCA 1274 & 1275 of 2010 against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, dated30.11.2006 and made in ITA No.41/06-07 against the order of theIncome Tax Office, I/c.Ward I (1), Salem, dated 31.03.2003 inPAN/GIR No. 11 Pr.0582 for the Assessment year 2003-2004.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Mr.M.Swaminathan
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
For Respondent : M/s.J.Sreevidya
The learned counsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue hadsubmitted that they may be permitted by this Court to withdrawthe present tax case appeals, in view of the Circular No.21 of2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department ofRevenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated10.12.2015, as the tax effect relating to the matter is lessthan Rs.20,00,000/-.
2. The learned counsels had further submitted that libertymay be granted to the Appellant/Revenue to revive the tax caseappeals, if it is found that they had been withdrawn,inadvertently, even though they fall under the exceptionsmentioned in paragraph 8 of the circular.
3. In view of the said submissions made by the learnedcounsels appearing for the Appellant/Revenue, the present taxcase appeals stand dismissed, as withdrawn. It is made clearthat the questions of law, which may arise for the decision ofthis Court, in the present tax case appeals, are left open to beconsidered and decided in appropriate cases, in accordance withlaw. It is also made clear that it would be open to theAppellant/Revenue to revive the tax case appeals, if it is foundthat they had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though theyfall under the exceptions mentioned in paragraph 8 of theCircular, within a period of twelve weeks from today. No costs.
To:
1. The order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench, 'D'..
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem.
3. The Income Tax Officer, I/c. Ward I(1), Salem.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,IIIrd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan,Besant Nagar, Chennai 90.
+1 cc to M/s. J.Sreevidya, Advocate, sr.5881
+1 cc to Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Advocate, sr.6360
T.C.A.No.1272 of 2010, T.C.A.No.1273 of 2010,T.C.A.No.1274 of 2010 and T.C.A.No.1275 of 2010
rv cokra 12.02.2016
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.