Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Mohamad Idris Bros. (P) Ltd on 20 January, 2021
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant in both TCAs
v.
M/s. Mohamad Idris Bros. (P) Ltd.,
No.5 Armenian Street,
Mannadi, Chennai - 600 001.
PAN : AAA CM 5231 G ... Respondent in both TCAs
T.C.A. No. 393/2017 : Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 07.10.2016 in
ITA.No.908/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
T.C.A. No. 394/2017 : Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 07.10.2016 in C.O.No.69/Mds/2016
for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
For Appellant : Mr.S. Rajesh
for Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. G.Baskar
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.S. Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/Revenue and Mr. G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the order
dated 07.10.2016 made in ITA.No.908/Mds/2016 & C.O.No.69/Mds/
2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A''
Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
3. In the above appeals, the assessee has raised the following
Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal
was right in deleting the addition made under
section 40A[3A], by relying on Rule 6DD(d) which
deals with book adjustments and cash payment
totally outside the purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the
Income Tax Rules?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal
was right in deleting the addition made under
section 40A[3A], by relying on Rule 6DD(k) which
deals with payments directly made to the weavers of
the sister concern which is totally outside the
purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the Income Tax Rules?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in
allowing the Cross Objection filed by the assessee?”
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on
account of the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated
08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said
Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
High Court has been increased to Rs.1 crore. It is further submitted that
the tax effect in respective cases is less than the threshold limit.
5. In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeals
are dismissed on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial
questions of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect in the
respective cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Circular,
liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to
restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
20.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, ''B'' Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
T.C.A.Nos. 393 & 394 of 2017
20.01.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
