Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri P. Senthilkumar on 15 July, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
in all appeals
Vs.
Shri P. Senthilkumar
P-2, HIG, Adyar Apartments
Circular Road, Kottur Gardens,
Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. ... Respondent
in all appeals
Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021 preferred
under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated
23.11.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.1222/Mds/2016 and 1223/Mds/2016,
respectively for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
in all appeals
For Respondent : Mr.T.Vasudevan
in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel
for the respondent/assessee.
2.The above appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the
order dated 23.11.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.1222/Mds/2016 and
1223/Mds/2016, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras, “B” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year
2011-12.
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial
questions of law in the above appeals :
T.C.A.No.362 of 2021 :
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty
levied u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act especially when
there was a delay in furnishing the Statutory Audit Report
and no proper reasons/evidence for the delay was explained
by the assessee before the AO?
2.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal
is proper by deleting the penalty levied especially when the
assessee had filed the Audit Report belatedly will set wrong
precedents and the provisions governing levy of penalty for
delay in filing render statutory requirements like Audit
Reports etc. will become redundant?”
T.C.A.No.363 of 2021 :
1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was correct in granting relief to the
Assessee especially when the proper investigation done by
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
the department reveal that the concerns associated with the
assessee only exist on paper and the transaction were not
genuine?
2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially
when the corresponding payment in the ledger folio of two
concerns Shri Rajam Impex and Bhagya Trading Industries
clearly indicate the self drawn cheques used and it had been
wrongly stated that the funds were transferred from the
assessee Bank account to bank account of Bhagya Trading
Agencies?
3.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal
is proper especially when as per the sales-tax department
records the above two concerns were categorized as
resellers as they had issued Form H to the assessee under
Central Sales-tax Act which only a Principal would issue
and therefore the finding of the Tribunal that they were only
agents in palpably wrong?
4.Whether the Tribunal is right in applying Rule
6DD(k) thereby making the provisions of Section 40A(3)
which was applicable when the suppliers are found to be
principles and not the agents?
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
5.Whether the Tribunal was right in applying Rule
6DD(k) thereby making the provision of Sec.40A(3)
inapplicable when the transacted goods are granites which
is not covered under Rule 6DD(e) and (f) of the Income Tax
Rules?”
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel 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 High Court has been
increased to Rs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in these
cases is less than the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeals
are dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax
effect in these cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said
Circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
Court to restore the above appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No
costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
15.07.2021
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras, “B” Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
T.C.A.Nos.362 and 363 of 2021
15.07.2021
(2/2)
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
