Tca/727/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Beach Minerals Co.pvt.ltd

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.727 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. M/s.Beach Minerals Co. Pvt. Ltd.,No.32/2, BMC House,Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.PAN: ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 07.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1737/MDS/2017 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2013-14 against the Appellate order of thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai dated08.05.2017 and made in ITA No.18/CIT(A) 1/2016-17 for theAssessment year 2013-14; and against the Assessment order of theIncome Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai dated30.03.2016 made in PAN No. for the Assessment year2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learnedcounsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 07.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1737/MDS/2017 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2013-14.3.The appeal was admitted on 15.11.2018 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i.Whether the disallowance under Section 14Aread with Rule 8D is to be made only if theassessee earns exempt income during the relevantprevious year as held by the Tribunal, which iscontrary to the provision of the said Section ? And ii.Whether the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the employees contribution to provident fundand ESI was allowable as business expenditure underSection 43B even though the said contribution wasnot paid within the due dates as specified in therespective Acts and is contrary to the provisionsof Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) ofthe Income Tax Act? ” 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. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CCC)//True copy// cse Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) 1, Chennai. 4. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai. Corporate Ward 1(2), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.73676 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.No.74499 TCA.No.727 of 2018 PA(CO)GMY(04/11/2019)