PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY

PDF · subscribers
TCA/560/2017HC Madras29 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM5 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 by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit. 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 awarded. The connected civil miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What were the facts?

These appeals were filed by the Revenue against the common order dated 09.11.2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'B' Bench, Chennai, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeals challenged the deletion of Rs. 16 lakhs treated as cash credit and Rs. 97,00,000/- treated as trade advances by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had deleted these additions. The appeals were admitted on 31.10.2017, framing substantial questions of law. The respondent is Shri. R. Krishnamoorthy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) who deleted Rs. 16 lakhs being cash credit, without appreciating that the CIT(A) had not called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, thus violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,00,000/- being trade advances, even though the liability was carried forward for years in the books, and the assessee had not been able to provide confirmation from creditors? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,00,000/- being trade advances, when the assessee requested further time to get details/confirmations from creditors and never produced any evidence before the appellate authorities? Contentions of the Revenue: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not calling for a remand report regarding the deletion of Rs. 16 lakhs. Regarding the trade advances of Rs. 97,00,000/-, the Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide confirmations from creditors despite carrying forward the liability for years and requesting further time. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 17/2019 of the CBDT regarding low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.560 & 561 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.560 and 561 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13961 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. .. Appellant in both Appeals -vs- Shri.R.Krishnamoorthy, 69, Karumarampalayam, Uthukuli Main Road, Mannarai P.O., Tirupur-641 607. PAN: AGE PR 2757 B .. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 09.11.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.1599 & 2005/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.K.Surendar (In both Appeals) ****** 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.560 & 561 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 09.11.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.1599 & 2005/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeals were admitted on 31.10.2017, on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of CIT(A), who deleted Rs.16 lakhs being cash credit, without appreciating that the CIT(A) has not called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and thus violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.97,00,000/- being trade advances, even though the liability has been carried forward for years in the books, the assessee had not been able to provide confirmation from creditors? and 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.560 & 561 of 2017 (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.97,00,000/- being trade advances, when the assessee vide its letter dated 17.03.2014 requested further time to get the details/confirmations from the creditors and never produced any evidence before the two appellate authorities?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.K.Surendar, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 08.08.2019 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. 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 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.560 & 561 of 2017 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 1.Shri.R.Krishnamoorthy, 69, Karumarampalayam, Uthukuli Main Road, Mannarai P.O., Tirupur-641 607. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.560 & 561 of 2017 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.Nos.560 and 561 of 2017 29.08.2019 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →