Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.2.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.(A).Nos.1482 to 1484 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai... Appellant Vs. Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd.No.40, North Usman RoadChennai – 600 017. .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai, dated 12.1.2007 made in I.T.A.Nos.336 to 338/Mds/2006 forthe assessment years 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. against the order dated 14.10.2005 and made in ITA.Nos.187/2005-2006 186/2005-06 & 185/2005-06 respectively on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax (A) V, Chennai-34against the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Companyward V (1) Chennai 34 for the assessment years 1998-99 , 1999-2000and 2000-2001 respectively. The Revenue has filed these appeals challenging the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.1.2007made in I.T.A.Nos.336 to 338/Mds/2006 for the assessment years 1998- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1999 to 2000-2001, and the same were admitted on the followingquestion of law:“Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that thecompensation received for delay in completion ofproject is a capital receipt?” 2. Even though these appeals were admitted on the question oflaw, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain these appealsin view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel forthe respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is peggedat Rs.4,00,000/- by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videInstruction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read with InstructionNo.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee also pleaded that thecase of the assessee does not fall within the exceptions specifiedin Instruction No.1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxeson 27.3.2000, where irrespective of revenue effect the matter shouldbe contested by the Department. The relevant portion of the saidinstruction reads as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “3. Adverse judgments relating to the following shouldbe contested irrespective of revenue effect: (i) Where Revenue audit objection in the casehas been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where the Board’s order, notification,instruction or circular is the subject-matter ofan adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings arecontemplated against the assessee. (iv) Where the constitutional validity of theprovisions of the Act are under challenge.” 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is notdisputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is lessthan Rs.4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall withinthe exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. 6. Considering the circulars issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, thisCourt is not inclined to entertain these appeals. Accordingly,without going into the merits of the question of law formulated,these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (Lok adalat) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sasiTo: 1. The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "B", Chennai.2. The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VChennai.Chennai. 4. The Income Tax Officer Company Ward V(1), Chennai. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai 1 cc to Mr.Philip George, Advocate, sr. 9325 1 cc to mr.T.R.Senthil kumar, advocate, sR. 9137 T.C.(A).Nos.1482 to 1484 of 2007 KSJ (CO)kk 6/3