PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M/S.AQUA PUMP INDUSTRIES

PDF · subscribers
TCA/386/2019HC Madras22 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. As the tax effect in these appeals was stated to be less than this threshold limit, the appeals were dismissed in light of the circular. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

These Tax Case Appeals (TCA) were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore (Revenue) against M/s. Aqua Pump Industries (Assessee). The appeals challenged the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras Bench, for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the Tribunal's failure to consider earlier assessment years' matters pending before the High Court in the assessee's own case and in the case of Aqua Sub-Engineering. The Revenue later brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, the subject matter of appeals were admitted on 03.07.2018 and are pending in TCA.Nos.341 and 342 of 2018, and similarly in the case of Aqua Sub-Engineering in TCA.Nos.761 to 764 and 82 of 2018 admitted on 20.3.2018 and are pending before this Court? (Question of law/mixed law and fact). Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals are less than the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed/pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos386 and 387 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos. 386 and 387 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore .. Appellant in both appeals Versus M/s.Aqua Pump Industries, Post Box No.5803, Thudiyalur Post, Coimbatore 641 034 ..Respondent in both appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, dated 21.08.2018 passed in respective ITA.Nos.1355 and 1356/Chny/2017 for the respective assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. For Appellant in both cases : Mr. M. Swaminathan & M/s.V. Pushpa Standing counsel 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos386 and 387 of 2019 For Respondent in both cases : Mr.R.Kumar for Mr.T.N. Seetharaman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, in respective ITA.Nos. 1355 and 1356/Chny/2017 relating to respective assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. On 24.06.2019, the aforesaid tax case appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law; '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years, the subject matter of appeals were admitted on 03.07.2018 and are pending in TCA.Nos.341 and 342 of 2018 and similarly in the case of Aqua Sub-Engineering in TCA.Nos.761 to 764 and 82 of 2018 admitted on 20.3.2018 and are pending before this Court?” 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos386 and 387 of 2019 3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel 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 these appeals are 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 question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 22.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos386 and 387 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr To 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, T.C.A.Nos. 386 and 387 of 2019 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos386 and 387 of 2019 22.08.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →