Chennai-58 v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.24 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai M/s.Ambattur Clothing Ltd., Chennai-58. ...Appellant/ Respondent Vs...Respondent/ Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 12.6.2015 made in ITA.No.1435/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2007-08 against the order of theCommissioner of Income tax Appeals I, chennai 34 dated20.01.2014 and made in ITA.NO.224/09-10 /A I and against theorder of the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle(I), chennai dated 11.11.2019 made in PAN/GIR.NO. AAA CA41270/AX1 091 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC andMrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.R.Sivaraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.R. Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated12.6.2015 made in ITA.No. 1435/Mds/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal was admitted on 01.2.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances, the Tribunal was right intreating the factory building as a capitalasset especially when the building was usedfor a business purpose from the asset year1983-84 onward till the asset year 2005-06 ?ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by setting aside the order of theAssessing Officer, who had invoked Section50 for a depreciable asset, since the saidasset was used for the purpose of businessforming part of block of assets? andiii. Whether the finding of the Tribunalis proper especially when the assessee hadclaimed depreciation on the land nearly 22years and the assets formed part of block ofassets for which, the benefit of indexationwas granted from the sale value of theland ?" 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. Thesubstantial 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/