The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.sahuwala Flour Mills

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.06.2021 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs. M/s.Sahuwala Flour MillsNo.56, Namiah Maistry Street,Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “B” Bench, dated 05.01.2012 in I.TA.No.1784/Mds/2011,Assessment Year 2008-09 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)IX, Chennai dated 12.09.2011 made in I.T.A.No. 122/2010-2011 for the Assessment year 2008-2009 against theAssessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle VII, Chennai dated 31.12.2010 made in P.A. No./GIR No.AABFS8827N for the Assessment year 2008-2009. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 05.01.2012 made in I.TA.No.1784/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 3.The appeal was admitted on 10.04.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatSection 40(a)(ia) is not attracted even thoughTDS amount had not been deducted and paid? 2.Whether it was proper for the Tribunal andhad enough material to dismiss the appeal of theRevenue especially when the payments were made onaccount of rendering services and facilitatingsupply/procurement is not for supply of anyproduct? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe contract entered by the assessee was not aservice contract and no TDS was required to bededucted under Section 194C?” 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 08.08.2019 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar mkn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)IX Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Circle VII, Chennai 34.Business Circle VII, Chennai 34. T.C.A.No.735 of 2013 RLD(CO)SP(23/07/2021)