Tca/449/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Diamond Engineering (Chennai)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Chennai... Appellant/Appellant-vs- M/s.Diamond Engineering (Chennai) P Ltd.,501, Vandalur Kelambakkam Main Road,Mambakkam, Chennai-600 127.PAN: .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,againsttheorderdated07.10.2016,madeinI.T.A.No.865/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) Chennai 34 dated 30.12.2015 made in I.T.A.No.54/CIT(A)-1/2014-2015 filed against the Assessment order of the Assistantcommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1(4)I/C) Chennai dated21.03.2014 for the Assessment year 2011-2012 in P.A.GIR.No./AAACD3949E. For Appellant:Mr.T.RavikumarSenior Standing Counsel &:Ms.R.HemalathaSenior Standing Counsel This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated07.10.2016, made in I.T.A.No.865/Mds/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2011-12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantialquestions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin deleting the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) ofthe I.T. Act is to be allowed in spite of the factthat there had been a delay in payment ofEmployee's contribution to EST and PF? and(ii) Whether the reasoning and finding of theTribunal is proper especially when Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act clearly holds that thesum is to be credited by the Assessee toEmployee's account on or before the due date underthe respective Acts?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant- and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learnedcounsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 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.17/2019,dated 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 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. Assistant Registrar(CCC) abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Chennai 34.Chennai 34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle 1(4) I/CChennai 34.Company Circle 1(4) I/CChennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate sr 75280. +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 74354. T.C.A.No.449 of 2017 RSI(CO)SP(30/10/2019)