Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem v. Sri Balaji Infra Developers, 5-38 U, Arumuga Nagar, Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.420 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem....AppellantVs Sri Balaji Infra Developers,5-38 U, Arumuga Nagar,Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 12.12.2014 made in ITA.No.2707/MDS/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2011-12. against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (A), Salem -7, dated 28/08/2014 madein ITA.No. 257/2013-14 and against the Assessment Order passedby the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Salem dated 28/02/2014made in PAN ABSF9728G. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SCFor Respondent: Mr.K.S.Loganathan JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant/revenue and Mr.K.S.Loganathan, learned counselappearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated12.12.2014 made in ITA.No.2707/MDS/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for theassessment year 2011-12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 21.07.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in considering the issue of applicabilityof Section 40a(ia) to amounts paid or payablebefore the last day of the financial year which wasnot the subject matter of the CIT(A) order? ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that Section 40a(ia) can be invoked onlyto the amounts of expenditure which are payable ason last day of the financial year and the not theexpenditure incurred during the financial year? iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin not considering the issue payments tointermediary without correlating the serviceprovider and non deduction of tax at source to theservice provider/poklinne operator/contractor?" 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 08.8.2019 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. cse To https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai. Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Salem -7. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (4), Salem. Ward I (4), Salem. +1cc to Mr.Swaminathan, Standing Counsel for Income TaxDepartment, S.R.No. 73569 TCA.No.420 of 2015EV(CO)GN(31/10/2019)