Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri Kamal Bhandari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.439 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellant/RespondentVs. Shri Kamal Bhandari17/2, Vijaya Complex,Veerappan Street,Sowcarpet,Chennai – 600 079. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “C” Bench, dated 21.10.2013 in I.TA.No.645/Mds/2013,Assessment Year 2008-09, against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) IV, Chennai-4, made inITA.No.126/2010-11, dt.29.01.2013 and against the order passedby the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle-XI,Chennai-6, made in PAN/GIR No. , dt.23-12-2010. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.Kaushik forMr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel 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 21.10.2013 made in I.TA.No.645/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 3.The appeal was admitted on 26.08.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin deleting the addition of unexplainedinvestment u/s.69A with respect to the value ofalloy of 37.957 kgs amounting to Rs.6,97,590/-which was not included to the closing stock onthe ground that the alloy is of no value andamount representing alloy was debited to profitand loss account? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that closing stock had to be valued byadopting by lesser of cost or net realizablevalue method, on the ground that said method wasconsistently followed by the assessee and,thereby, adopting lesser value of Rs.6,721/- perkg of silver, as against the actual purchase andsale price of Rs.18,639/- and Rs.17,683/- per kgof silver, when the assessee itself had admittedto adoption of net realizable value?” 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-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) IV, Chennai-34. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle XI, Chennai-6. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.17826 T.C.A.No.439 of 2014 BS(CO)CB(17/04/2021)