PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SRI KRISHNA TILES & POTTERIES

PDF · subscribers
TCA/442/2018HC Madras28 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in the respective cases was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Chennai, filed four Tax Case Appeals (TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. These appeals challenged the common order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and concerned the assessee, M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries Pvt. Ltd. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue sought to appeal against the ITAT's decision on issues related to disallowance under Section 14A and the treatment of investments in sister concerns and free funds.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue of investment made in sister concerns for disallowance under Section 14A, considering that the section and Rule 8D do not provide for any exception for such investments? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the disallowance under Section 14A by holding that free funds (reserves and surplus) were more than the investment in assets yielding exempt income, despite the assessee holding a mixed bag of funds and failing to substantiate that such investments were out of interest-free funds? 3. For assessment year 2011-12 only, whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if interest-free loans given to sister concerns were from own funds or borrowed funds, without considering the jurisdictional High Court judgment in K.Somasundaram & Bros vs. CIT? 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in following the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., which was allegedly overruled by the Supreme Court in Manjil Sales Corporation? The Revenue argued that Section 14A and Rule 8D do not provide exceptions for investments in sister concerns and that the assessee failed to prove investments were out of free funds. The Revenue also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court judgment and followed an overruled Supreme Court decision. The judgment does not record arguments from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated :28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.9796 to 9798 of 2018 in T.C.A.Nos.443 to 445 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries Pvt. Ltd., A-1, Kumara Vijayam Flats, Opp.Vidhya Mandir, 99, R.H.Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. PAN: AADCS4844G ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 30.03.2017 made in ITA.Nos.2023 and 2024/Mds/2016 and C.O.Nos.118 and 119/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 30.03.2017 made in ITA.Nos.2023 and 2024/Mds/2016 and C.O.Nos.118 and 119/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12. 3.The appeals have been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law : “[for the Asst. year 2011-12 & 2012-13] 1.Whether the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue of investment made in sister concerns are not liable for disallowance u/s.14A when the provisions of the said section as well as Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in remitting the disallowance u/s.14A holding that free funds in the form of reserves and surplus held by the assessee is more than the investment made in assets yielding exempt income, when the assessee was maintaining mixed bag of funds and failed to substantiate that such investment in assets yielding exempt income are out of interest free funds? [for the Asst. Year 2011-12 only] 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the interest free loans given to sister concerns were out own funds or borrowed funds without considering the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of K.Somasundaram & Bros vs. CIT reported in 238 ITR 939 (Mds)? 4.Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in following Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs- Abhishek Industries Ltd. which is explicitly over ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 298 ITR 298 in the case of Manjil Sales Corporation?" 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 4.The learned Senior 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 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 framed 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse To 1.M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries Pvt. Ltd., A-1, Kumara Vijayam Flats, Opp.Vidhya Mandir, 99, R.H.Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. TCA.Nos.442 to 445 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.9796 to 9798 of 2018 in T.C.A.Nos.443 to 445 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →