COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. PREMIER MARINE PRODUCTS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal on the grounds of tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 1 crore. However, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect is found to be above the limit fixed in the circular, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai) filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 2008-2009. The Revenue's appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to dismiss its appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Chennai, dated 11.04.2012. The CIT(A)'s order had also been challenged by the assessee. The High Court admitted the Revenue's appeal on a substantial question of law concerning the applicability of Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to cash purchases from middlemen and traders at fish catching centers.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no addition under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be made towards cash purchase exceeding Rs. 20,000/- effected from middle men and traders at fish catching centre by applying the provisions of Rule 6DD(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by assuming that the purchases were made from the fishermen directly? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs. 1 crore and is covered by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT. As per this circular, the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.12.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs M/s.Premier Marine Products, No.3/284, Muttukadu Raod, Neelangarai, Chennai 600 041. PAN AAAFP3039N ... Respondent PRAYER : Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench, dated 14.10.2016 passed in ITA.No.1463/mds/2012. For Appellant :Mrs.R.Premalath for Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior standing counsel For Respondent :Mr.A.S.Sriraman 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) This Tax Case Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 14.10.2016 passed in ITA.No.1463/mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2.The order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Chennai, dated 11.04.2012 for the assessment year, 2008-2009 was challenged before the Tribunal by the Revenue as well as the Assessee. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the same holding that nothing has been shown by either of the parties to interfere with the order of the CIT(A)-VIII. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal only, the present appeal has been filed. 3.The appeal was admitted on 27.03.2018 on the following substantial questions of law : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no addition under Section 40A(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made towards cash purchase exceeding Rs.20,000/- effected 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 from middle men and traders at fish catching centre by applying the provisions of Rule 6DD(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by assuming that the purchases were made from the fishermen directly?” 4.Mrs.S.Premalatha,
learned
counsel
for Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 crore and is covered by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi. As per the said circular, the monetary limit to file an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs.1 crore. In this case, tax effect is less than Rs.1 crore and therefore, the case has to be dismissed. 5.This Court perused the circular dated 08.08.2019 and Paragraph No.2 of the said Circular, which prescribes monetary limit for filing appeal is usefully extracted as follows: 2.As a step towards further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows: S.No. Appeals / SLPs in Income- tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appeallate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on account of tax effect. However, the substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (NKKJ) (PVJ) 12.12.2019 sai 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN
, J.
sai T.C.A.No.114 of 2018 Dated : 12.12.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026