ACIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI vs. SAMKAR SEALING SYSTEMS PVT LTD, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit set by CBDT for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals, and whether the disallowance under Section 14A requires further examination by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai, dated 14.11.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has filed the cross-objection against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, we heard the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee together and disposing the same by this common order.
On hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative, we find that the tax effect in this case is less than `50 lakhs. The CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 increased the monetary limit for filing appeal before this Tribunal and instructed its officers to withdraw all the appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than `50 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this Circular of CBDT is binding on the officers of the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed further in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Now coming to the cross-objection filed by the assessee, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was no dividend income, therefore, there cannot be any disallowance either under normal computation or under MAT computation. On a query from the Bench, whether there was any finding either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(Appeals) that there was no dividend income, the Ld.counsel submitted that there was no such finding by the lower authorities, however, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. D.R. also. The assessee claims before this Tribunal that there was no dividend income. However, there was no finding either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(Appeals) with regard to availability of the dividend income. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the issue of disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and bring on record the availability of the dividend income and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
However, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd August, 2019 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
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