Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Precot Mills Ltd - 2020-LL-0615-30

Citation	2020-LL-0615-30
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore
Respondent Name	Precot Mills Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	15/06/2020
Assessment Year	2005-06
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	additional depreciation • industrial undertaking • filing of audit report • procedural lapse • monetary limit • low tax effect
Bot Summary:	966/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal has been admitted on 10.4.2013 on the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that part of an industrial unit itself can be treated as an independent industrial undertaking entitled for additional depreciation as provided in Section 32(1)(iia), though looms are only part of the industrial undertaking of the assessee 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the weaving division can be considered as a separate undertaking for determining the claim for allowance of additional depreciation as provided in Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement for filing of the audit report along with the return of income is only directory and not mandatory 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.

TCA.No.147 of 2013 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 15.6.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.147 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs M/s.Precot Mills Ltd., Coimbatore ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 19.7.2012 made in ITA.No.966/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.147 of 2013 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act) is directed against order dated 19.7.2012 made in ITA.No.966/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for brevity, Tribunal) for assessment year 2005-06. 3. appeal has been admitted on 10.4.2013 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that part of industrial unit itself can be treated as independent industrial undertaking entitled for additional depreciation as provided in Section 32(1)(iia), though looms are only part of industrial undertaking of assessee ? 2. Whether, under facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that weaving division can be considered as separate undertaking for determining claim for allowance of additional depreciation as provided in Section 32(1)(iia) of Income Tax Act? 3. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that non filing of audit report in Form 3AA as prescribed in Third Proviso to Section 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.147 of 2013 32(1)(iia) is only procedural lapse ? And 4. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that requirement for filing of audit report along with return of income is only directory and not mandatory ? 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeal is not pursued by Revenue on account of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. By said Circular, monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeal before High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that tax effect in this case is less than threshold limit. 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions of law framed are left open. In event tax effect is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make mention to this Court to restore appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 15.6.2020 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.147 of 2013 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. TCA.No.147 of 2013 15.6.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Precot Mills Ltd

Metadata

Judgment