COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI G. MANIVANNAN

PDF · subscribers
TCA/490/2015HC Madras27 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for High Court appeals to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the revised threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. The substantial questions of law that were framed for admission were expressly left open by the Court. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 and concerns the assessee, Shri G. Manivannan. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue submitted that it was not pursuing the appeal due to a low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 of the CBDT, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amendment to the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced in the Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 01.04.2013, is retrospectively applicable as a declaratory and curative legislation? 2. Whether the Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to an assessee where the recipient had already paid tax on such amount in the relevant assessment year? The Revenue argued that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The substantial questions of law were left open by the Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.490 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.490 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.

...Appellant Vs Shri G.Manivannan ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.09.2014 made in ITA.No.1661/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji 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 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.490 of 2015 appellant/revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.09.2014 made in ITA.No.1661/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3.The appeal was admitted on 10.08.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amendment to Second Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) introduced in the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 is retrospectively applicable, being a declaratory and curative legislation? and (ii) Whether the Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to an assessee wherein the recipient had already paid tax on such amount in relevant assessment year?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.490 of 2015 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.490 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.490 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →