Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii,Tiruchirapalli v. M/S.raman & Raman Automobiles Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 19.02.2021 Commissioner of Income Tax - II,Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s.Raman & Raman Automobiles Ltd.,48, Thiruvidaimarudur Road,Kumbakonam.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "D" Bench, dated 30.03.2011 in I.TA.No.563/Mds/2010,Assessment Year 2006-07, against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals) in ITA.No.364 of 2008-09, dated01.02.2010 in G.I.No./PAN.No. for the Assessment year2006-07 against the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle -I, Kumbakonam, dated 24.12.2008. For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel We have heard Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directedagainst the order dated 30.03.2011 made in I.TA.No.563/Mds/2010on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D"Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Years 2006-07. 3.The appeal was admitted on 28.09.2011 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:“1)Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in holding that the assessee had noliability to deduct tax at source on the paymentsmade to the transport contractors who transportedthe tractors to the assessee's premises on theirrelevant ground that the payments were made atthe instance of M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra, thesuppliers of the tractors and in deleting thedisallowance made under Section 40(a)(ai) of theAct of Rs.11,35,942/-? 2)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatamendment to Section 194 C made by the FinanceAct 2009 was retrospective in effect and sincethe transport contractors had furnished the PANand the payments were made by Account Payeecheques, no tax was to be deducted at source?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in these cases areless than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in these cases is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS.VI) Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D" Bench. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Kumbakonam. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),