THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED

TCA.No.34 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.01.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.M/s.Carborandum Universal Limited, Parrys House, 43, Moore Street, Chennai - 600 001. PAN: AAACC2474F ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 08.06.2017 made in ITA.No.802/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2003-04. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.34 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 08.06.2017 made in ITA.No.802/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no provisions in the Income Tax Act to charge interest u/s.220(2) during the intervening period 19.12.2006 to 03.06.2009 which is contrary to the Board Circular 334 dated 03.04.1982 which clearly provides for charging of interest u/s.220(2) from the due date with reference to the original demand notice and upto the date on which the liability had become final? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought to have 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.34 of 2021 applied the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Girnar Investments Ltd vs CIT reported in 340 ITR 529 which has clearly stated the correct position of law that even before the proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2014 which only confirm that the amendment was clarificatory and not prospective?" 3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, 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. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.34 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk 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.) 18.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. TCA.No.34 of 2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/