ACIT, CORP CIR-6(1), CHENNAI vs. SAMKAR SEALING SYSTEMS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 366/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 August 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 14A

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

For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Hearing: 23.08.2019Pronounced: 23.08.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.366/Chny/2019
C.O. No.52/Chny/2019

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:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →