Commissioner Of Income Tax,Media Circle, Chennai v. Shri S.p.balasubrahmanyam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.304 and 305 of 2017and C.M.P.No.8698 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax,Media Circle, Chennai... Appellant in both Appeals/Respondent -vs- Shri S.P.Balasubrahmanyam,No.16, Kamdar Nagar, Chennai-600 034.PAN: AADPB 4195 J.. Respondent in both Appeals/Respondent Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the common order dated 05.08.2016, made inI.T.A.Nos.696/Mds/2016 and 1160/Mds/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2006-07 Against the order dated 29.01.2016made in ITA.NO.81/2011-2012 on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax Appeals 14, chennai 34 for theAssessment Year 2006-2007 and against the order dated07.12.2011 made in PAN/GIR NO. AADPB 4195 J on the file ofthe Deputy commissioner of Income tax -I Media circle-I,chennai for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and against theorder dated 26.12.2008 made in PAN/GIR NO.AADPB 4195 J onthe file of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax MediaRange, chennai for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan,(In both Appeals)Senior Standing Counsel:assisted by Ms.V.PushpaStanding CounselFor Respondent :Mr.J.Balachandar(In both Appeals) ****** (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are directed against the commonorder dated 05.08.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.696/Mds/2016 and1160/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2006-07. 2.The appeals have been filed raising the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in holding that the provisionsof Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Actare applicable only to the amounts ofexpenditure which are payable as on 31[st] Marchof the relevant previous year and it cannotbe invoked to disallow expenditure which hadbeen actually paid during the previous yearwithout deduction of tax at source?(ii) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justifiedand correct in deleting the addition made u/s40(a)(ia) on account of short deduction oftax relying on the decision of CIT vs.S.K.Tekriwal (361 ITR 432) (Cal), ignoringthe decision of Kerala High Court in the caseof CIT vs. P.V.S.Memorial Hospital Ltd.(2016) (380 ITR 284) (ker)?(iii) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justifiedand correct in remitting the issue ofaddition u/s 40(a)(ia) relying on thedecision of Income Tax Appellate TribunalSpecial Bench at Vizag in the case of MerilynShipping & Transporters when such decisionwas stayed by Andhra Pradesh High Court? and (iv) Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inremitting the issue of addition u/s 40(a)(ia)relying on the decision in Merilyn Shipping &Transporters and ignoring the decisions in CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar & Ors (Guj)(357 ITR 312), CIT vs. Crescent ExportSyndicate (Cal) (216 Taxman 258), Palam GasService vs. CIT (HP) (370 ITR 740), P.M.S.Diesels vs CIT (P & H) (374 ITR 562) andThomas George Muthoot vs. CIT (Ker) (63taxmann.com 89)?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselfor the appellant – and Mr.J.Balachandar, learned counselfor the respondent. CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar & Ors (Guj)(357 ITR 312), CIT vs. Crescent ExportSyndicate (Cal) (216 Taxman 258), Palam GasService vs. CIT (HP) (370 ITR 740), P.M.S.Diesels vs CIT (P & H) (374 ITR 562) andThomas George Muthoot vs. CIT (Ker) (63taxmann.com 89)?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselfor the appellant – and Mr.J.Balachandar, learned counselfor the respondent. 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are not pursued by theRevenue on account of the low tax effect in terms ofCircular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetarylimit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the HighCourt has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is furthersubmitted that the tax effect in this case is less than thethreshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above taxcase appeals are dismissed on account of the low taxeffect. The substantial questions of law framed are leftopen. In the event the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore theappeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// abrTo 1.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 14, CHENNAI 343.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I MEDIA CIRCLE-I,CHENNAI.4.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEDIA RANGE,CHENNAI+1cc to Mr.Swaminathan , Advocate SR.No. 75042T.C.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2017A.SK(15/11/2019)