PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. HATSUN AGRO PRODUCTS
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 a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, specifically the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Chennai, filed three appeals (TCA.Nos.641-643/2016) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. These appeals challenged a common order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 and concerned the assessee M/s. Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., Chennai. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide on the following substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue: 1. Whether disallowance for non-deduction of tax arises only on amounts payable at the end of the year, irrespective of the timing of credit or payment (Section 40(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the definition of 'paid' in Section 43(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable when invoking Section 40(ia). 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting issues to the Assessing Officer, directing them to follow the Special Bench decision in Merilyn Shipping and Transports Vs. Addl. CIT, which was under stay by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not deciding the grounds raised by the Department on merits. The Revenue argued that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for High Court appeals to Rs.1 Crore. The tax effect in these cases was below this threshold. The assessee was represented by counsel, but their specific arguments on the substantial questions of law are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 40(ia),Section 43(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.641-643/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.641 to 643 of 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., Chennai-17. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 20.11.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1433/Mds/2012, 795/ Mds/2014 & 1096/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench respectively for the assessment years from 2008-09 to 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.Karthi Ranganathan, SSC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.641-643/2016 Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 20.11.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1433/Mds/2012, 795/ Mds/2014 & 1096/Mds/ 2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench respectively for the assessment years from 2008-09 to 2010-11. 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct to hold that disallowance for non deduction of tax arises only on amounts lying payable at the end of the year irrespective of the fact that the liability for deduction of tax arises at the time of credit or actual payment whichever is earlier ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the definition given in Section 43(2) to the term 'paid', which means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting (payable in the case of 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.641-643/2016 mercantile system of accounting) based on which profits and gains are computed, is not applicable while invoking the provisions of Section 40(ia) ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in remitting the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer while giving direction to follow the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal delivered in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports Vs. Addl. CIT [reported in (2012) 136 ITD 23], which is stayed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh? and iv. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not deciding the grounds raised by the Department, on merits ?” 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 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.641-643/2016 dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.641-643/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS raised 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. 30.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.Nos.641 to 643 of 2016 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40(ia)
- Vinay Grover, New Delhi vs ITO Ward 36(1), New DelhiITA 3206/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 May 2024AY 2021-22
- Yogis Angels Entertainment and Decor Pvt… vs ITO Ward 27(4), New DelhiITA 6074/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Jan 2024AY 2015-16
- U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi…ITA 2112/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07
- U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi…ITA 2105/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
- U S Roofs Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfe-Ass C, Delhi…ITA 2104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026