Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai v. M.k.siraj

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1174 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central II, Chennai.... Appellant/AppellantVs. M.K.Siraj... Respondent/Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "B" Bench, dated 23.10.2008 in I.T(SS).A.No.155/Mds/2006block period 22.01.2003 and this appeal against the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) II, Chennai 34 order dated 31.03.2006made in I.T.A. No.203/2004-2005 for the assessment year Blockperiod from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2002 and 01.04.2002 to22.01.2003 and against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(I/C) Central Circle 11(3) Chennai 34 order dated 31.01.2005made in PAN/GIR No. AAJPS5966/N/26791S for the assessment yearrelevant to Block period 1996-1997 to 2001-2002 from 01.04.2002to 22.01.2003. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, 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 23.10.2008 made in I.T(SS).A.No.155/Mds/2006 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B"Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the block period22.01.2003. 3.The appeal was admitted on 12.11.2009 on the followingsubstantial question of law:“1)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law in deletingthe addition made by the assessing officer to thetune of Rs.2,03,71,000/- towards cash credit asunexplained investment under Section 68 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is valid in law? 2)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law in deletingthe addition and the new facts presented by theassessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and the assessing officer was not givenan opportunity as envisaged under Rule 46A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 to refute the factspresented by the assessee before the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) is valid?” 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 these cases areless than 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 question of law framed is left open. Inthe 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. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench, Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IIChennai 34.Chennai 34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (I/C)Central Circle 11(3)Chennai 34.Central Circle 11(3)Chennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr 10253. +1 CC to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate sr 10854. T.C.A.No.1174 of 2009 KJ(CO)SP(19/03/2021)