IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON :01.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :07.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

CRP.No.5650 of 2025

and CMP.No.28269 of 2025

R.V.Venkateshan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.Sanjay @ Sanjay Sait

2.Manisha

3.S.Karthikeyan

4.S.Muruganandam

5.Marimuthu

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to order of the learned III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai passed in I.A.No.14 of 2025 in

O.S.No.2731 of 2019, dated 22.08.2025, set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for M/s.A.Ramalingam

For Respondents : Mr.K.Jegannathan

J U D G M E N T The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the PAN number to the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 and to forward the case particulars to the Income Tax Department.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money based on promissory note. It was the case of the petitioner that he lent a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- by cash to the respondents on 21.06.2016 and they executed the suit promissory note and agreed to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since the respondents failed to pay the debt inspite of demand, the suit was laid for recovery of money. The respondents 1 and 2 who were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed an application seeking direction to petitioner to reveal his PAN number and also seeking a direction to forward the copy of the plaint and other documents to jurisdictional Income Tax Authorities for the purpose of considering the violation of Section 269 ST of Income Tax Act. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court ordered the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Correspondent, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B.Gunashekar and another reported in 2025 INSC 490. However, Section 269 ST of Income Tax Act came into force only with effect from 01.04.2017 as per Finance Act of 2017. The suit transaction had taken place prior to 01.04.2017. Therefore, the newly introduced Section 269ST of Income Tax Act cannot be pressed into service in respect of the suit transaction.

4. In support of his contention, he relied on the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ‘C’ Bench, in ITA.No.158/DEL/2023 [A.Y.2017-18] in Krishna Wanti Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 35, New Delhi.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Correspondent, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B.Gunashekar and another reported in 2025 INSC 490 submitted that as per the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case, all the Courts in India are duty bound to inform the suit transaction in cash to the Tax Authorities, if the amount involved is more than Rs.2,00,000/-.

6. Section 269 ST of Income Tax Act reads as follows:

[269ST. Mode of undertaking transactions.—No person shall receive an amount of two lakh rupees or more—

(a) in aggregate from a person in a day; or (b) in respect of a single transaction; or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to—

(i) any receipt by—

(a) Government;

(b) any banking company, post office savings bank or co-

operative bank;

(ii) transactions of the nature referred to in section 269SS;

(iii) such other persons or class of persons or receipts, which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(