Case LawHigh Court › Tca/149/2024 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Tca/149/2024 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. S Devi

High Court 05 Aug 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Tca/149/2024 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. S Devi
Date of order
05 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Tca/149/2024 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. S Devi, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Instead, raising a point against the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act may not be justified, as whether there has been an error apparent on the fact of the record in the main order itself can be questioned while canvassing the grounds to be urged by the Rev...

Decision: Therefore, with a liberty to file an appeal against the main order, this appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.08.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.149 of 2024 Commissioner of Income Tax Non-Corporate No.121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034.Appellant .Vs. S.DeviRespondent ----- Prayer : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 09.08.2023 passed in Mis.Application No.110/Chny/2023. ----- For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Miscellaneous Application No.110/Chny/2023 in Income Tax Appeal No.428 of 2022 under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. In fact the Tribunal passed the impugned order in I.T.A.No.428 of 2022 dated 04.01.2023. Against the said order, as according to the Revenue, there has been an error apparent on the face of the record, hence the said Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Act was filed, which was dismissed through the impugned order. 3. Since the main order has already been passed, which is staring on the Revenue, it is open to the Revenue to challenge the said order by filing the regular appeal. Instead, raising a point against the dismissal of Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act may not be justified, as whether there has been an error apparent on the fact of the record in the main order itself can be questioned while canvassing the grounds to be urged by the Revenue at the time of filing the appeal. When that being the position, we are unable to entertain this appeal. Therefore, with a liberty to file an appeal against the main order, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoKST (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N.,J.)05.08.2024 T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.and C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.149 of 2024 05.08.2024
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan