PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AQUA GRANITES

PDF · subscribers
TCA/663/2016HC Madras18 August 2020Bench: Hon`ble Dr Justice VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). In the present case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated January 14, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "B" Bench. The appeal concerned assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and involved additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards unrecorded sales and unproved expenditure. The ITAT's order was under challenge. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT's order for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 was perverse, considering no change in material facts from a previous round of appeal. 2. Whether the ITAT correctly allowed unproved expenditure of Rs. 35,44,711/- against unrecorded sales for assessment year 1995-96. 3. Whether the ITAT correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 48,25,000/- made by the AO towards estimated unrecorded sales for assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order was perverse and that the Tribunal erred in allowing unproved expenditure against unrecorded sales and deleting additions for estimated unrecorded sales. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee, M/s. Aqua Granites.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, dated

Order dated 18.08.2020 in TCA No.663 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Velti India Private Limited) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.08.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.663 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, No. I 08, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai ... Appellant -Vs- M/s. Aqua Granites C/o. Kumari Kanagam, G-1, Sakthi Towers, 57/1, 8th Cross East Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. PAN: AAF FA 6564 L ... Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "B" Bench, dated 14.01.2016 in IT(SS) A.9/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J) The Court was held by Video Conference as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 03 July 2020, by Judges at the respective residence and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. Page 1 / 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dated 18.08.2020 in TCA No.663 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Velti India Private Limited) 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, dated 14.01.2016 in IT(SS) A.9/Mds/2015, by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the appellate Tribunal is not perverse for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 when there is no reason to deviate from the earlier stand taken by the Tribunal in the first round of appeal as the material facts have not changed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct m law in allowing the unproved expenditure of Rs.35,44,711/- against unrecorded sales for the assessment year 1995-96? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is" correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,25,000/- made by the A.O towards estimated unrecorded sales for the Assessment year 1996-97 ? 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals Page 2 / 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dated 18.08.2020 in TCA No.663 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Velti India Private Limited) 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). 4. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate case. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 18.08.2020 KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "B" Bench, Chennai. Page 3 / 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dated 18.08.2020 in TCA No.663 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Velti India Private Limited) Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. KST T.C.A.No.663 of 2016 18.08.2020 Page 4 / 4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →