PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M/S.SABARI TMT KING PVT LTD

Judgt. dt. 5.9.19 in T.C.A.666 & 667/2019 PCIT v. Sabari Tmt King Pvt. Ltd 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.9.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.666 & 667 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. Appellant Vs. M/s.Sabari TMT King Pvt. Ltd., 312/31 & 32, 5-C/D/E, 5th Floor, Gee Gee Emerald, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. PAN: AALCS 7695H Respondent Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 3.7.2018 made in ITA No.3135/Chny/2017 and C.O.No.34/Chny/2018 in ITA No.3135/Chny/2017. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 3.7.2018 made in ITA No.3135/Chny/2017

and

C.O.No.34/Chny/2018

ITA http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 5.9.19 in T.C.A.666 & 667/2019 PCIT v. Sabari Tmt King Pvt. Ltd 2/5 No.3135/Chny/2017, for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, 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 was correct and justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by producing confirmation statements in about 80% of the cases rather than 100%? iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the onus of disproving the genuineness of sundry creditors was with the AO, when confirmation statements of about 20% sundry creditors had never been filed by the assessee and the notices sent by the AO were returned with postal remark 'left'? iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sundry creditors pertained to the earlier years http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 5.9.19 in T.C.A.666 & 667/2019 PCIT v. Sabari Tmt King Pvt. Ltd 3/5 when it was clear from the balance sheet as on 31st March 2013 that all sundry creditors pertained only to the relevant previous year? v) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in dismissing the Revenue Appeal and allowing the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, when the Assessee had not discharged its onus on the Sundry Creditors?" 2. When the matters are taken up for admission, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals 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). 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 5.9.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 5.9.19 in T.C.A.666 & 667/2019 PCIT v. Sabari Tmt King Pvt. Ltd 4/5 To 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax No.121, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3. M/s.Sabari TMT King Pvt. Ltd., 312/31 & 32, 5-C/D/E, 5th Floor, Gee Gee Emerald, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 5.9.19 in T.C.A.666 & 667/2019 PCIT v. Sabari Tmt King Pvt. Ltd 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and C.SARAVANAN, J. ssk. T.C.(A) Nos.666 & 667 of 2019 5.9.2019. http://www.judis.nic.in