THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. STERLING AGRO PRODUCTS

PDF · subscribers
TCA/361/2015HC Madras29 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN6 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, decided to dismiss the present appeals. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law being kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law by the Tribunal were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

What were the facts?

These are three tax case appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) against M/s. Sterling Agro Products Processing Pvt. Ltd. (assessee). The appeals challenge a common order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, concerning assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The appeals were admitted by the High Court on substantial questions of law. During the hearing, the Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, 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 these appeals was below this threshold.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act in regard to its business of manufacturing gherkin pickles? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of advance given to the farmers for the supply of raw materials written off is to be allowed, especially when the assessee has not provided proof that the debts had occurred during the earlier assessment year for writing off of such amount? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee, especially when the same was shown as irrecoverable advances under the head "Selling and distribution expenses" and no proof for the same was also furnished by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the tax effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and therefore, the appeals should not be pursued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus M/s. Sterling Agro Products Processing Pvt. Ltd., Sterling Tower, 327, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondent in all TCAs Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.598, 599 and 600/Mds/2011.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Standing Counsel in all TCAs Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.598, 599 and 600/Mds/2011, relating to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.

2.

By order dated 22.07.2015, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: T.C.A.Nos.361 and 363 of 2015:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act in regard to its business of manufacturing gherkin pickles?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of advance given to the farmers for the supply of raw materials written off is to be allowed especially when the assessee has not provided proof that the debts had occurred during the earlier assessment year for writing off of such amount? Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee especially when the same was shown as irrecoverable advances under the head "Selling and distribution expenses" and no proof for the same was also furnished by the assessee? " T.C.A.No.362 of 2015:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of advance given to the farmers for the supply of raw materials written off is to be allowed especially when the assessee has not provided proof to show that the debts had occurred during the earlier assessment year for writing off of such amount?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee especially when the same was shown as irrecoverable advances under the head "Selling and distribution expenses" and no proof for the same was also furnished by the assessee?" 3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 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 these appeals is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 29.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle - VI(4), Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av

T.C.A.Nos.361 to 363 of 2015 29.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →