Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Puducherry v. M/S.kallakurichi Coop. Sugarmills Ltd., Villupuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.8.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL NOS.459 AND 460 OF 2018& CMP.NO.9832 OF 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry...Appellant Vs M/s.Kallakurichi Coop. SugarMills Ltd., Villupuram...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 30.11.2017 in ITA Nos.2184 and2187/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'C' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2013-14and 2014-15. against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Puducherry in ITA.No.09 & 120/CIT(A) PDY/2016-17 dated30.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Villupuramdated28.12.2016and14.03.2016inPAN/GIR.No.AAAAT3677M in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-2015. For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Revenue has preferred these appeals challenging theorders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inITA.Nos.2184 and 2187/Mds/ 2017 for the assessment years 2013-14and 2014-15 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The above appeals have been filed raising the followingsubstantial question of law : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal isright in holding that when the Government ofTamil Nadu was the lender and the assesseewas the borrower, any amount payable to aGovernment, but not actually paid is not hitby Section 43B of the Income Tax Act ? ” 4. It may not be necessary for us to answer the abovesubstantial question of law as framed by the Revenue, as themonetary limit in these appeals is lesser than the amount fixedby the circular instructions issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. This Court had an occasion to consider the effectof those circulars in TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, therelevant portions of which are as follows : “4. Further, it is relevant to notethat by Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018,monetary limit has further been increasedand appeals be maintainable before the HighCourts. It has been increased toRs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have beenfiled. 5. Thus, by applying the above Circularissued by the CBDT, this appeal ought not tohave been filed by the Revenue and hence,for that reason, this tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions oflaw, framed for consideration, are leftopen.” 5. In the light of the above, the above appeals aredismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.The substantial question of law is left open for consideration. Assistant Registrar(CS VI)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RSTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal,DP Thottam, Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 003DP Thottam, Muthialpet, Puducherry-605 003 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Villupuram Circle, VillupuramVillupuram Circle, Villupuram 4.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,PuducherryPuducherry 5.The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Besant Nagar, Chennai.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Besant Nagar, Chennai. 6.The Director, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar , Advocate, S.R.No.54240TCA.Nos.459 and 460 of 2018and CMP.No.9832 of 2018 MG(Co)CS/05/09/18