Order in TCA Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gomathi Radhakrishnan) dated 16.03.2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.340, 341, 342, 343 and 344 of 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai. Appellant in all appeals Vs. Gomathi Radhakrishnan No.931, 11th Sector, 69th Street KK Nagar, Chennai. Respondent in all appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 29.07.2016 in ITA Nos.1617, 649, 1078, 682 and 683/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman & Sridhar Page 1 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gomathi Radhakrishnan) dated 16.03.2020 JUDGMENT (Judgment of Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by Revenue calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, by raising following substantial question of law: TCA Nos.340 to 342 of 2017 (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in search cases where returned income is lower than assessed income, whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted automatically in view of special provisions of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) which are applicable to only search cases? And (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Appellate Tribunal is correct in law stating that provisions of Section 271AAA and not provisions of Sub-section (1) to Section 271AAA read with Explanation to Sub-Section (4) of that Section, provisions of Section 271AAA as applicable only to assessment year relevant to 'specified previous year'? Page 2 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gomathi Radhakrishnan) dated 16.03.2020 TCA Nos.343 & 344 of 2017 (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal i s correct in law in deleting penalty levied by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 attributable to addition of Rs.40,50,000/- and Rs.94,00,000/- respectively made in assessment in case of assessee, which was confirmed by CIT (A)? 2. When matter was taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice Circular instruction issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by Department before High Court in cases where tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In instant cases, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed as not pressed, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate case. (V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 16.03.2020 KST Page 3 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gomathi Radhakrishnan) dated 16.03.2020 Page 4 of 5 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Gomathi Radhakrishnan) dated 16.03.2020 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J. KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai. T.C.(A) Nos.340 to 344 of 2017 16.03.2020 Principal Commissionerof Income-tax, Central 2, Chennai v. Gomathi Radhakrishnan