Coimbatore v. M/S.prasad And Company

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Commissioner of Income Tax,No.63, Race Course Road,Coimbatore. Coimbatore....AppellantVsM/s.Prasad and Company,No.24, Gandhi Nagar 3[rd] Street,Tirupur-641 603.PAN: AAI FP 9785 H...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1353/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai forthe assessment year 2009-10 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals II),Coimbatore dated18.02.2014 for the assessment Year 2009-2010 in ITA.NO.283/11-12and against the order fo the Income Tax Officer Ward (I)(4)Tirupur dated 30.12.2011 in PAN/GIR NO.AAI FP 9785 H. For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,Senior Standing Counselassisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,Junior Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.R.Sivaraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman,learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1353/Mds/2014 on the file of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal was admitted on 21.12.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“1. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal is correct in setting aside theclaim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) ofthe Income Tax Act back to the assessingofficer, when the assessing officer hadconsidered the Construction Agreemententered by the assessee with the land ownerwhich is purely a Works Contract and thesame was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in claiming deduction asper explanation to Section 80IB(10) insertedby the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from1.4.2001? 3. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in not appreciating thatthe construction work was outsourced to asub-contractor and therefore, the assesseeis not entitled for deduction under section80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act?” 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS II),COIMBATORE 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (I)(4) TIRUPUR. 4.THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX-APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,SHASTRI BHAVAN,II ND FLOOR,BESANNT NAGAR, CHENNAI-90. A.SK(04/08/2020) TCA.No.1198 of 2015