Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iv v. Shri S.jeyachandran

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.388 and 389 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central IV, 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai....Appellant both T.C.AVsShri S.Jeyachandran...Respondent in both T.C.A. APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 28.03.2014 made inITA.No.2246/Mds/2013 and C.O.No.24/Mds/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2006-07 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A) © II, Chennai in I.T.A. No. 84/2013-2014 dated20.09.2013 AY 2006-2007 against the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 21.03.2013 for theassessment year 2006-2004 against the order dated 30.12.2009made in PAN/GIR.No. for the assessment year 2006-2007. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC(Both Cases) For Respondent: Mr.G.Baskar(Both Cases) COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated28.03.2014madeinITA.No.2246/Mds/2013andC.O.No.24/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. 3.The appeals were admitted on 24.07.2018 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : "1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct indeleting penalty ignoring facts that this case issquarely covered by explanation 5A to Section 271(1)[c] of the IT Act? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the ITAT is justified in deletingthe penalty ignoring the judgment of the Apex Courtin the case of MAK DATA Pvt Ltd reported in (38Taxman.com 448)? 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the finding of ITAT that the Rs.2 croressurrendered u/s. 132(4) is perverse in so far as itwas admitted separately through a letter and notu/s. 132(4) of the IT Act?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(A)(C)IIChennaiChennai 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle IV(2) Mahatma Gandhi RoadChennai 34.Central Circle IV(2) Mahatma Gandhi RoadChennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate sr 74187 +1 CC to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate sr 74247. TCA.Nos.388 and 389 of 2018 RK(CO)SP(24/10/2019)