Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Iii, Chennai v. M/S.r V Steels Private Limited

CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle III,Chennai.... AppellantVs.M/s.R V Steels Private Limited,4/2, Second Street,B.N.Road, T.Nagar,Chennai – 600 017.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “D” Bench, dated 13.09.2013 in I.TA.No.1303/Mds/2013,Assessment Year 2005-06 and against the order dated 20/03/13made in ITA No.133/11-12 on the file of the CIT(A)-II, Chennaiand against the order dated 23/12/2011 made in PA No/GI No.AAACR2457 B on the file of the (ACIT) Central Circle III (3), Chennaifor the Assessment year 2005-06. JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, 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 13.09.2013 made in I.TA.No.1303/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 3.The appeal was admitted on 05.09.2014 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 correct in presuming thatthe assessee provided complete names and addressof the parties extending cash credits when theAssessing Officer showed that were all non-existent? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in presuming thatthe receipts of cash credits were transactionsbetween seller and customer when there was nosuch evidence like supply of good, confirmationor any other correspondence on record? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in presuming thatthe cash credits from M/s.Divya Cements andM/s.Kalinidi Industries were genuine because theywere received through brokers and through chequesonly despite the fact that they were found to bebogus parties during investigation by theAssessing Officer?” 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar MKN To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench Chennai, “D” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal II) Chennai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III(3), Chennai.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.17825T.C.A.No.442 of 2014AJB(CO)TE (19/04/2021)