Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S.kumudham Publications New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal No.631 of 2009 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. .... Appellant /AppellantVs. M/s.Kumudham Publications New No.306, Purasawalkam High Road,Chennai 600 010.PAN: .... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.1.2009 made in ITANo.1625/Mds/2007, against the order passed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeal)-III Chennai 600 034 dated 22/3/2007 madein ITA No.95/2006-07/A-III for the Assessment Year 2003-04 andagainst the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Company Circle 11 (3), Chennai-34 dated 10/03/2006 made inG.I.No/P.A No.AAACK2957P for the Assessment Year 2003-04. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.1.2009 madein ITA No.1625/Mds/2007, by raising the following substantialquestion of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that themargin money not claimed as cost in the earlieryear, may be allowed as a bad debt in the year whenthe mistake was discovered? " 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial question of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk. To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-III, Chennai-34. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II (3) Chennai-34.+1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.25562 TCA No.631 of 2009 sr[co]srg 29/04/2019