PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. SHRI. THENDIYAKAVO KOYAKUTTY

TCA/182/2021HC Madras08 August 2022Bench: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in light of the submission by the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in this appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in the circular. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the depreciation rate for crawler cranes and the non-following of the Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. case were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the dismissal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 6, 2019. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2012-13 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the depreciation rate applicable to crawler cranes. The assessee is Shri.Thendiyakavo Koyakutty Hassan. The High Court of Judicature at Madras was hearing the appeal. During the proceedings, the Revenue brought to the court's notice a CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, which stipulates that appeals should not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT was correct in holding that crawler cranes fall under the category of 'Moto Lorries' used in a business of running them on hire, thereby being eligible for depreciation at a higher rate of 30%? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT was correct in not following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. (254 ITR 558 (Madras)), which held that mobile cranes are items of machinery and not road transport vehicles? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's decision was incorrect on both counts. They relied on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, stating that the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.182 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No. 182 of 2021 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034

.. Appellant Versus Shri.Thendiyakavo Koyakutty Hassan, No.18/3A, Menambedu Road, Padi, Mannupet, Chennai 600 050.

.. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Chennai dated 06.03.2019 passed in ITA.No.1570/CHNY/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.182 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Chennai in ITA.No.1570/CHNY/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, on the following substantial questions of law;

' 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the crawler cranes fall in the category “Moto Lorries” used in a business of running them on hire” and are eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 30%? 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in not following the jurisdictional high court decision in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 254 ITR 558 (Madras) wherein it was held that Mobile Cranes is not road transport vehicle but an item of machinery?” 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.182 of 2021 for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 08.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai-34. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Chennai-34 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.182 of 2021 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No. 182 of 2021 08.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →