The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. A.V. Gopalakrishnan
[Citation -2020-LL-0302-77]

Citation 2020-LL-0302-77
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name A.V. Gopalakrishnan
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/03/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags penalty • low tax effect
Bot Summary: The Respondent/assessee, for the Assessment Year 2007-08, by an order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2015, was imposed a tax of Rs.86,83,173/- and it was followed by a Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short IT Act being initiated separately. The Assessee, aggrieved by the said order of Assessment, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax-4. The CIT(Appeals), Chennai, vide an order dated 30.08.2016 passed under Section 250(6) of the IT Act, dismissed the appeal. The Assessee made further challenge by filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Chennai. The ITAT, Chennai, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2018, had allowed the appeal and challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that in the light of the circular issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 268A of the IT Act, a decision has been taken not to prosecute the appeal, which is having the tax impact of less than one crore and admittedly a circular in this regard has also been issued and in the light of the fact that the tax assessed by the income tax officer is less than one crore, prays for appropriate orders. In the light of the said circular, this Tax Case Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2020 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Tax Case (Appeal) No.782 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ...Appellant -vs- Shri A.V. Gopalakrishnan ...Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai, dated 08.02.2018 in ITA No.3163/Chny/2016. For Petitioner : Mr. T. Ravi Kumar For Respondent : No appearance. Page 1 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCS No.782 of 2018 ORDER (Order of Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,) Revenue is appellant. 1. Respondent/assessee, for Assessment Year 2007-08, by order of Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2015, was imposed tax of Rs.86,83,173/- and it was followed by Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short IT Act ] being initiated separately. Assessee, aggrieved by said order of Assessment, filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4. CIT(Appeals), Chennai, vide order dated 30.08.2016 passed under Section 250(6) of IT Act, dismissed appeal. Assessee made further challenge by filing appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. ITAT, Chennai, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2018, had allowed appeal and challenging same, Revenue has filed present appeal. 2. __________ Page 2 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCS No.782 of 2018 2. This Appeal was entertained on 11.06.2019 by framing following substantial question of law: "Whether Tribunal was right in holding that deduction claimed U/s. 54F is to be granted for all Nine flats even though condition prescribed by statute has not been fulfilled by Assessee since possession has been taken after 3 years from date of transfer of original assets?" 3. Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue would submit that in light of circular issued by Income Tax Department under Section 268A of IT Act, decision has been taken not to prosecute appeal, which is having tax impact of less than one crore and admittedly circular in this regard has also been issued and in light of fact that tax assessed by income tax officer is less than one crore, prays for appropriate orders. Page 3 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCS No.782 of 2018 4. In light of said circular, this Tax Case Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed. However, question of law is left open and it is to be decided in appropriate proceedings. [MSNJ] [AQJ] 02.03.2020 Index : Yes/No bga Copy to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. Page 4 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCS No.782 of 2018 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J., bga Tax Case (Appeal) No.782 of 2018 02.03.2020 Page 5 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. A.V. Gopalakrishnan
Report Error