The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.q Source Global Consulting (P) Limited, Chennai-32

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.489 of 2018 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Chennai...AppellantVs M/s.Q Source Global Consulting (P)Limited, Chennai-32 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 23.11.2016 made in ITA.No.2282/Mds/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2012-13. against the Order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (A)-3 Chennai, dated 17/03/2016 madein ITA.No. 109/CIT (A)-3/2014-15 and against the AssessmentOrder passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CorporateCircle V (2), Chennai, dated 10/12/2014 made in PAN AAAC Q1521H. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.11.2016 madein ITA.No.2282/ Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether the Tribunal was right indeleting the additions made by the AssessingOfficer under Section 2(24)(x) read with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section36(1)(va)holdingthattheemployee'scontributionpaidtowardsprovident fund/ESI belatedly was eligiblefor deduction while computing the businessincome even if the Section prohibits suchallowance to be granted ? And ii. Whether the deduction is to beallowed even in cases of belated payment ofcontribution towards ESI/pension fundsespecially when Section 2(24)(x) read withSection 36(1)(va) refers to sums received asemployee's contribution and not employercontribution and would become income in thehands of the assessee as the same wascredited to the relevant fund beyond duedates specified under those Acts ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for theRevenue has produced a letter dated 15.7.2019 issued by theIncome Tax Officer (Judicial), Office of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-5, Chennai-34 stating thatthe tax effect involved in this case is Rs.28.45 lakhs, which isfar below the monetary limit fixed as per Circular No.3 of 2018dated 11.7.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes andthat he has been instructed him to withdraw the above appeal. 5. The letter dated 15.7.2019 issued by the Income TaxOfficer (Judicial), Office of the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Chennai-5, Chennai-34 is placed on record and theabove tax case appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Thesubstantial questions of law are left open. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Insp Cell)//True Copy// RS Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -3, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate circle V (2), Chennai. +1cc to Mr. T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 59964+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No. 60516 TCA.No.489 of 2018 EV(CO)GN(22/08/2019)