THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.PROSTAR HOSPITALITY SERV

TCA.No.144 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.02.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.144 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Prostar Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd., (formerly known as M/s.Sinar Jenih (India) P Ltd.) No.33, (Old No.14), 48th Street, 9th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 083. PAN: AAGCS9195R ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.10.2016 made in ITA.No.1129/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.K.G.Raghunath 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.144 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 28.10.2016 made in ITA.No.1129/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appellant-Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) in spite of the fact that there has been a delay in payment of Employees Contribution to ESI and PF which is not allowable as per Act? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by deleting the additions made under Section 36(1)(va) which is allowable only if the employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI are credited into the specified account within the specified due dates as per respective Acts which is not the case on hand? 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.144 of 2021 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in granting relief to the Assessee on account of belated payment of Employee's contribution made towards Provident Fund and ESI, especially when Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act had been violated?" 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.K.G.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing 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 08.08.2019 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. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.144 of 2021 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 15.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.144 of 2021 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.144 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk TCA.No.144 of 2021 15.02.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/