THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S COOPER STANDARD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/865/2017HC Madras16 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, which 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold limit. Consequently, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect and the circular, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial question of law was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (appellant/revenue) filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Madras “B” Bench. This order was passed in M.P.No.308 of 2016 in I.T.A.No.794/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the Tribunal's power to recall an order passed under Section 254(2) when the original order was on merits. The respondent, M/s. Cooper Standard Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., did not appear before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in recalling the order passed under section 254(2) when the original order dated 22.7.2016 was one passed on merits and therefore recalling the same would tantamount to reviewing the order which power was not vested in the Tribunal? The appellant (Revenue) contended that the Tribunal's power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing an order passed on merits. The Revenue relied on the principle that a review of an order on merits is not permissible unless specifically provided for by statute. The respondent (Assessee) did not present any arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.865 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No. 865 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

.. Appellant Versus M/s.Cooper Standard Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., 3-A, Ford Supplier Park, Kilakaram Village, Melrosapuram Post, Singaperumal Koil, Chengalattu 603 204.

.. Respondent 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 12.05.2017 passed in M.P.No.308 of 2016 in I.T.A.No.794/Mds/2016 in respect of assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.865 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 12.5.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, in M.P.No.308 of 2016 in I.T.A.No.794/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. On 14.09.2020, this tax case appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law; ' Whether the Tribunal was right in recalling the order passed under section 254(2) when the original order dated 22.7.2016 was one passed on merits and therefore recalling the same would tantamount to reviewing the order which power was not vested in the Tribunal?”

3.

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, 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). It is also submitted that the tax effect in 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.865 of 2017 this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 16.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(3), Chennai. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai-34. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, Chennai 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.865 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.No. 865 of 2017 16.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 →