The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Pondicherry v. R. Krishnamurthy
[Citation -2020-LL-0127-72]

Citation 2020-LL-0127-72
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Pondicherry
Respondent Name R. Krishnamurthy
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Wealth-tax
Date of Order 27/01/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags audit objection • monetary limit • tax effect
Bot Summary: Appellant in all appeals Vs. R.Krishnamurthy Respondent in all appeals Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 03.08.2009 passed in I.T.A.Nos. In Judgment in TCA Nos.569 to 571/2010 dated 27.01.2020 2/4 learned Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ground of Revenue stake being below the monetary limit of Rs.2,00,000/- prescribed in the Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24th October, 2005. Para 3 of the order of the Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference: 3.We have also heard the learned D.R. and considered the facts and material on record. 2.The learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue however submitted that in the Instruction No.5/2008 dated 15.05.2008, if the matter involves some audit objection, the instruction to withdraw the appeal on the Revenue stake being below the prescribed limit of Rs.2,00,000/- will not apply and therefore, that exception has not been considered by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal. 4.Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to send back to the learned Tribunal to reconsider the matter and after quoting the relevant instructions to note, the learned Tribunal should record its findings as to whether the appeals itself are to be heard on merits and deserves to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Appellant/Revenue, in view of the Revenue stake being below the prescribed minimum. 5.Accordingly, the present Appeals filed by the Appellant/ Revenue for statistical purpose are dismissed as withdrawn, setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 03.08.2009. We remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the case again.


Judgment in TCA Nos.569 to 571/2010 dated 27.01.2020 (The Commissioner of Wealth Tax V. M.Banumathy) 1/4 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal Nos.569, 570 & 571 of 2010 Commissioner of Wealth-tax Pondicherry. Appellant in all appeals Vs. R.Krishnamurthy Respondent in all appeals Appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 03.08.2009 passed in I.T.A.Nos.11/Mds/2009, 12/Mds/2009 & 13/Mds/2009. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy (in all appeal) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance (in all appeal) COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) Revenue has filed these Appeals against order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 03.08.2009 whereby http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA Nos.569 to 571/2010 dated 27.01.2020 (The Commissioner of Wealth Tax V. M.Banumathy) 2/4 learned Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal on ground of Revenue stake being below monetary limit of Rs.2,00,000/- prescribed in Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24th October, 2005. Para 3 of order of Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference: "3.We have also heard learned D.R. and considered facts and material on record. We find that tax effect in these cases is below Rs.2,00,000/0 fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24th October, 2005. Revenue has not made out case to establish that issue falls within exceptions provided in said circular/Instruction." 2.The learned counsel for Appellant/Revenue however submitted that in Instruction No.5/2008 dated 15.05.2008, if matter involves some audit objection, instruction to withdraw appeal on Revenue stake being below prescribed limit of Rs.2,00,000/- will not apply and therefore, that exception has not been considered by learned Tribunal and therefore, matter deserves to be remanded back to learned Tribunal. 3.Nobody appears on behalf of Respondent/Assessee, http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA Nos.569 to 571/2010 dated 27.01.2020 (The Commissioner of Wealth Tax V. M.Banumathy) 3/4 though name of Mr.V.S.Jayakumar is shown in cause list. 4.Having heard learned counsel for Appellant/Revenue, we are of opinion that matter deserves to send back to learned Tribunal to reconsider matter and after quoting relevant instructions to note, learned Tribunal should record its findings as to whether appeals itself are to be heard on merits and deserves to be dismissed as withdrawn by Appellant/Revenue, in view of Revenue stake being below prescribed minimum. 5.Accordingly, present Appeals filed by Appellant/ Revenue for statistical purpose are dismissed as withdrawn, setting aside order of Tribunal dated 03.08.2009. We remand matter back to learned Tribunal for deciding case again. There shall be no order as to costs. (V.K.J.) (R.S.K.J.) 27.01.2020 Sgl To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA Nos.569 to 571/2010 dated 27.01.2020 (The Commissioner of Wealth Tax V. M.Banumathy) 4/4 'B' Bench, Chennai. DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. And R. SURESH KUMAR, J. Commissioner of Wealth-tax Pondicherry v. R. Krishnamurthy
Report Error