PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SNJ DISTILLERS PVT LTD.,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that the Tribunal had erred in its finding regarding the applicability of CBDT Circular No.21/2015. Clause 5 of this circular permits Revenue appeals in assessment years where the disputed issue arises in more than one year, irrespective of the monetary limit. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable on this ground was incorrect. However, the Court noted that as of the current date, the Revenue could not pursue these appeals due to the monetary limit fixed in the latest CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial question of law was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect subsequently exceeded the threshold limit.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed two appeals (T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. These appeals challenged the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 31.05.2017, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee is M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals before the Tribunal due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable due to a tax effect less than Rs.10,00,000/-, without appreciating clause 5 of CBDT Circular No.21/2015, which allows maintainability of Revenue appeals in cases of composite orders even if the tax effect is below the monetary limit? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The appeals themselves cannot be pursued by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as fixed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Revenue's contention: The Tribunal erred in dismissing its appeals on the ground of low tax effect by referring to CBDT Circular No.21/2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.09.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai – 600 034. .. Appellant / Appellant (in both appeals) Versus M/s.SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd., New No.99, Canal Banks Road CIT Nagar, Nandanam Chennai – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F .. Respondent / Respondent (in both appeals) Common Prayer:- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ''B'' Bench, dated 31.05.2017 in I.T.A.No.1042/Mds/2016 and ITA.No.1043/Mds/2016, respectively. 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar (in both appeals) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan (in both appeals) for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan COMMON
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
, J.]
These appeals filed by the Revenue, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) are directed against the orders, dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity), in I.T.A.No.1042/Mds/2016 and ITA.No.1043/Mds/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. These appeals are entertained on the following substantial question of Law: Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Revenue appeal is not maintainable, since the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, without appreciating clause 5 of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, which provides in case of a composite order Revenue appeal is 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 maintainable even though the tax effect is below monetary limit? 3. Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submitted that the Tribunal had fell in error in dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue before it, on the ground of low tax effect, by referring to the circular of CBDT No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015. 4. It is the submission of Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee that these appeals itself cannot be pursued by the Revenue on account of low tax effect as fixed by CBDT, vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019. 5. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 6. We observe that the Tribunal has committed error in its finding in terms of paragraph No.5 of the Circular No.21/2015, as per which, if the disputed issue arises in more than one assessment years, appeals can be filed 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 by the Revenue in such assessment year or years, regardless of the monetary units. Therefore, we hold that the finding rendered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.6 of its common order dated 31.05.2017 in ITA.Nos,1042,1042 &1044/Mds/2016, is incorrect. Nevertheless as on date, the Revenue cannot pursue the present appeals because of the monetary limit fixed in the latest CBDT's Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019. 7. In the light of the above, the 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 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. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J)
09.09.2020 ds Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 To : 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai – 600 034
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai, 'B' Bench. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J., ds T.C.A.Nos.262 & 263 of 2018 09.09.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026