THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S ARGUS COSMETICS LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/132/2015HC Madras27 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, which fell below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal was left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2007-08 and concerned the assessee, M/s. Argus Cosmetics Ltd. The substantial question of law admitted by the High Court related to the carry forward of depreciation for assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was below this threshold.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 could be carried forward indefinitely, especially considering that Section 32(2) prior to 01.04.2002 stipulated that it could not be carried forward for more than 8 years? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing indefinite carry forward of depreciation, citing the limitation of 8 years under Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment effective from 01.04.2002. The Revenue's appeal was admitted on this substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 32(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.132 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.132 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Argus Cosmetics Ltd., 4, Sujatha Centre, Seshadri Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 25.09.2013 made in ITA.No.1275/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.132 of 2015 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 25.09.2013 made in ITA.No.1275/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2007-08. 3.The appeal was admitted on 23.03.2015 on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation for the assessment year 1997-98 to 1999- 2000 can be carried forward in total forever especially when Section 32(2) prior to 01.04.2002 had clearly stated the same could not be carried forward for more than 8 years?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.132 of 2015 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Argus Cosmetics Ltd., 4, Sujatha Centre, Seshadri Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.132 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.132 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 32(2)

All 321 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →