THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S. S AND S POWER FINVEST L

PDF · subscribers
TCA/874/2019HC Madras28 November 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice N. KIRUBAKARAN6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel and the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore for filing appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 1 Crore, the appeal was dismissed on account of the tax effect. However, the substantial question of law framed by the court was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect is found to be above the limit fixed in the circular, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (the appellant/Revenue) filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'C' Bench. The ITAT's order had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by M/s. S & S Power Finvest Ltd. (now Acratyle Power (I) Ltd.) (the respondent/assessee). The assessment year under consideration was 2006-07. The appeal before the High Court concerned an addition of Rs. 55.11 Lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the assessee's total income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 55.11 Lakhs made by the AO to the total income? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning the AO's addition and the ITAT's decision thereon). Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The tax effect in this case is less than Rs. 1 Crore and is covered by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT. As per this circular, the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court is Rs. 1 Crore. Therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA NO.874 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.11.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.NO.874 OF 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

... Appellant Vs. M/s.S & S Power Finvest Ltd. (Now known as Acratyle Power (I) Ltd.) No.16, T.T.K. Road, 1st Cross Street, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondent PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 04.04.2013 in I.T.A.No.1021/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA NO.874 OF 2019 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.)

This Tax Case Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 04.04.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.1021/Mds/2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by which the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. 2. Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This Tax Case Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55.11 Lakhs made by the AO to the total 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA NO.874 OF 2019 income? " 4. Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.1 Crore and is covered by Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi. As per the said circular, the monetary limit to file an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs.1 Crore. In this case, tax effect is less than Rs.1 Crore and therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed. 5. This Court perused the circular dated 08.08.2019 and Paragraph No.2 of the Circular, which prescribes monetary limit for filing appeal. Paragraph No.2 is usefully extracted as follows: "2. As a step towards further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA NO.874 OF 2019 Circular shall read as follows: S.No. Appeals / SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appeallate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 6.In view of the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also in view of the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on account of tax effect. However, the substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. [N.K.K., J.] [P.V., J.]

28.11.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA NO.874 OF 2019 TK

To The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA NO.874 OF 2019 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. AND P.VELMURUGAN, J. TK T.C.A.NO.874 OF 2019 28.11.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →