Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.M/S.Carborandum Universal ... on 18 January, 2021
TCA.No.34 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.M/s.Carborandum Universal Limited,
Parrys House, 43, Moore Street,
Chennai - 600 001.
PAN: AAACC2474F ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 08.06.2017 made in ITA.No.802/Mds/2014 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year
2003-04.
For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravi Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.34 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order 08.06.2017
made in ITA.No.802/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment
year 2003-04.
2. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law
for consideration:
“1. Whether the Tribunal was right in
holding that there was no provisions in the
Income Tax Act to charge interest u/s.220(2)
during the intervening period 19.12.2006 to
03.06.2009 which is contrary to the Board
Circular 334 dated 03.04.1982 which clearly
provides for charging of interest u/s.220(2) from
the due date with reference to the original
demand notice and upto the date on which the
liability had become final?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.34 of 2021
2. Whether the Tribunal ought to have
applied the decision of the Delhi High Court in
the case of Girnar Investments Ltd vs CIT
reported in 340 ITR 529 which has clearly stated
the correct position of law that even before the
proviso was inserted by Finance Act, 2014 which
only confirm that the amendment was
clarificatory and not prospective?"
3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the Appellant – Revenue and Mr.Ashok Pathy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the above appeal is 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 High Court has been
increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case
is less than the threshold limit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.34 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is
dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law
framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit
fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition
before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No
costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
18.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
'B' Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
TCA.No.34 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
