PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M.MANI

TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.3.2021 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.208 and 210 to 212 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 7(4), Chennai-34 ...Appellant in TCA.208/2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34. ...Appellant in TCA.Nos.210 to 212 of 2021 Vs Shri.M.Mani ...Respondent in TCA.No.208 of 2021 M/s.Granites India (P) Ltd. ...Respondent in TCA.No.210 of 2021 M/s.Indowind Energy Ltd. ...Respondent in TCA.No.211 Of 2021 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 M/s.Hwashin Automotive India (P) Ltd. ...Respondent in TCA.No.212 of 2021 APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders respectively (i) dated 28.2.2017 made in ITA.No.3457/Mds/ 2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13; (ii) dated 15.12.2017 made in ITA.No.1950/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2003-04; (iii) dated 05.1.2018 made in ITA.No.1122/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11; and (iv) dated 23.3.2018 made in ITA.No.2588/Chny/ 2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellants in all the appeals : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC For Respondents in both TCA.Nos.210 & 211 of 2021: Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondent in TCA.No.212 of 2021 : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue, Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondents in TCA.Nos.210 and 211 of 2021 and Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent in TCA.No.212 of 2021. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the orders respectively (i) dated 28.2.2017 made in ITA.No.3457/Mds/ 2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13; (ii) dated 15.12.2017 made in ITA.No.1950/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2003-04; (iii) dated 05.1.2018 made in ITA.No.1122/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11; and (iv) dated 23.3.2018 made in ITA.No.2588/Chny/ 2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “(i) TCA.No.208 of 2021 i. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing relief u/s 54F of the Act when the asseseee had purchased multiple dwelling units registered in different documents? ii. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act when the Act speaks of “new asset” and not “new assets”? And iii. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F when the assessee is not entitled to such claim by virtue of Proviso (a)(ii) under Section 54F(1) ? (ii) TCA.No.210 of 2021 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the impugned loss of trade advance of Rs.62,90,402/- is allowable under the provision of Section 37 of the Act, when the assessee had not proved beyond 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 doubt that the monies advanced is really a bad debt and is covered u/ S.36(2) of the IT Act? (iii) TCA.No.211 of 2021: i. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that allowing higher claim of depreciation while calculating the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, when the assessee had not disclosed by way of a note forming part of annual accounts as specified in Circular No.2/89/No.1/17-87-CI-V of the Ministry of Industry? And ii. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in law in allowing additional depreciation when the assessee himself had failed to produce the technological evaluation report based on which the higher depreciation was claimed? and (iv) TCA.No.212 of 2021 : i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that employee’s contribution of PF/ESI which were deposited beyond the due dates specified under the relevant PF/ESI laws but before the 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 due date of filing income-tax return as specified in Section 43B of the Act cannot be treated as the deemed income of the assessee within the meaning of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act? and ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in applying the decision of M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Private Limited without considering the circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 which clearly states that only the remittance of employer’s contribution to PF/ESI by the assessee as an employer on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act would be allowable as per provisions u/s.43B of the Act, further it clarified that it is not applicable to cases which are governed by Section 36(1)(va) of the Act?” 4. The learned 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 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 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. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised are 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 16.3.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D', 'C' 'C' & 'A' Benches respectively RS 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.208 & 210 to 212 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS TCA.Nos.208 and 210 to 212 of 2021 16.3.2021 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in