The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.best & Crompton Engg Ltd

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.31 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....Appellant/AppellantVs M/s.Best & Crompton Engg Ltd.,No.28, Sidco Industrial Estate,Ambattur, Chennai - 600 056.PAN: ...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 28.02.2017 made in ITA.No.647/MDS/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2011-12, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034 dated 14.12.2015 New.No.ITA-10/CIT(A)-1/2014-15,ITA.NO.79/14-15, PAN. for the assessment year 2011-12and against the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Companycircle(2) Chennai-34 dated 12.03.14 PAN/GIR/ for theAssessment year 2011-12 respectively. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Not ready Notice (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing for the appellant/revenue. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated28.02.2017 made in ITA.No.647/MDS/2016 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessmentyear 2011-12. 3.This appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : "1.Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition of Rs.6722678/- made by A.O. on account ofdelayed payment to Employee's Contribution toProvident Fund and ESI are allowable, especially whenSection 36(!)(va) rad with Section 2(24)(x) prohibitsuch allowance being granted to the assessee? 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad bydeleting the additions made under Section 36(1)(va)which is allowable only if the employee'scontribution to provident fund and ESI are creditedinto the specified account within the specified duedates as prescribed under the respective Acts whichis not the case on hand? 3.Whether relief is to be granted to the Assesseeby virtue of amended provision of Section 43B even incases where there has been a belated contributionsmade in respect of Provident Fund and ESI in respectof Employee's contribution especially when theSection contemplates the payment to be made beforethe due date as prescribed in the respective Actwhich is not the case on hand?" 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. The 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ substantial 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(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Department(Appeals),121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department,Company Circle(2), Chennai-34. TCA.No.31 of 2018ad(co)nr 31/10/2019 3/3