COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S S.R.S. FABRICS,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel and CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to make a mention to restore the appeals if the tax effect in the respective cases is found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, for hearing and decision on merits. The specific issue concerning the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) to 'payable' versus 'paid' amounts, and the ITAT's order remanding the case for verification, was not decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore (Revenue) against the common order dated 22.5.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 1973 and 2259/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. The appeals were admitted by the High Court on 20.1.2016. The respondent assessee, M/s. S.R.S. Fabrics, Coimbatore, was served but did not appear before the High Court. The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for High Court appeals to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer to verify that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only on those amounts 'payable' and not those amounts 'paid' during the year without deducting tax at source? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as no appearance was made. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to the low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.12 & 13/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.12 & 13 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.S.R.S.Fabrics, Coimbatore-1. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 22.5.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1973 and 2259/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC Respondent: served and no appearance COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.12 & 13/2016 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 22.5.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1973 and 2259/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeals were admitted on 20.1.2016 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer to verify that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only on those amounts 'payable' and not those amounts 'paid' during the year without deducting tax at source ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.12 & 13/2016 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.)
30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.12 & 13/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.12 & 13 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- 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