The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri.a.s.rajkumar

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 20.9.2018 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.99 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...Appellant/AppellantVsShri.A.S.Rajkumar...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 24.2.2014 in ITA No.333/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07 against the order passed by theOffice of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals VIII) Chennai34 made in I.T.A. No. 171/11-12(A) VIII order dated 27.11.2012and against the order passed by the Income Tax DepartmentChennai 34 made in PAN/GIR No. AGKPR62181) for the Assessmentyear 2006-2007. Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging theorder dated 24.2.2014 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal in ITA.No.333/Mds/ 2013 for the assessment year 2006-07. 3. The above appeal has been admitted on 16.11.2016 on thefollowing substantials question of law :“1. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the provisions ofSection 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to theamount of expenditure, which are payable asof 31st March of the relevant previous yearand it cannot be invoked to disallowexpenditure, which had been actually paid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during the previous year, for which, no taxhad been deducted at source ? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad, especially when the assessee has notdeducted TDS in respect of commissionpayment, which would automatically warrantdisallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) ? 3. Whether the term 'payable' wouldinclude the amount, which are paid duringthe previous year or only those that areoutstanding as on 31st March ? and4. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in treating the amount payable asdistinct from the amount paid for thepurpose of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia)?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantseeks permission to withdraw the above appeal based on theBoard's monetary policy circular. He would submit that onaccount of the monetary limit in this appeal, which is lesserthan the threshold fixed by the Board's circular dated11.7.2018, he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. 5. The said submission of the learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Revenue is placed on record. The above tax caseappeal is dismissed as withdrawn and the substantial questionsof law framed in this appeal are left open. No costs. True Copy To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. 2. The Income Tax officer Business Ward IV(4) Chennai 34. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals VIII, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr.M. Swaminathan, Advocate sr 35372.+1 CC to Mr.K. Ravi, Advocate sr 65358. TCA.No.99 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/