Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri.srinath Sridevan

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 21.12.2009Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.1135 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai...AppellantVsShri.Srinath Sridevan, No.7Krishnaswamy AvenueOff : Luz Church RoadMylapore, Chennai-4....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Chennai 'D' Bench dated 15.1.2009 made in ITA No.747/Mds/2008 for the assessment year2002-2003. For Appellant : Mr.K.Subramanian J U D G M E N T (JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J)By formulating the following substantial question of law "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe appeal by the Revenue had to be dismissed merely since the tax effect is less than Rs.2 lakhs, byrelying on the circular that governs filing of appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal and withoutconsidering the fact that the present case involves audit objection ?"the Revenue filed this appeal. 2. The Assessing Officer, while completing the reassessment proceedings under Section 143(3) readwith Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, disallowed/withdrawn 1/4th of the expenses incurredtowards insurance/ depreciation on car and interest on car loan, since the assessee himselfdisallowed 1/4th car maintenance expenses in his return of income. Aggrieved by the disallowance,the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed theappeal by holding that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen and reassess the returns.Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appealbefore the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax effect in the case onhand is below the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The correctness of the same is now put in issue in this appeal by the Revenue onthe sole ground that it is of-course true that there is a circular fixing the monetary limit for filing anappeal before the Tribunal. But, the circular is not an absolute circular. There are certain exceptionscontained therein. One of the exceptions is that if there is an audit objection, the Revenue can file anappeal notwithstanding the fact that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit quoted by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. Though the said argument of the Revenue is interesting to hear, the fact remains that no suchargument is appeared to have been advanced before the Tribunal, which is amply evident by a merereading of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the question of law formulated does not arise from theorder of the Tribunal. While observing that the other remedy is available to the Revenue, the appealis to be dismissed as the issue of filing of an appeal by the Department before this Court or beforethe Tribunal when the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed in the circular of the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes has been considered by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT VsRajasthan Patrika Limited (reported in (2002) 258 ITR 300), by this Court in the case of CWT Vs.S.Annamalai (reported in (2002) 258 ITR 675) and by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT VsCamco Colour Co.K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,JANDM.M.SUNDRESH,J RS(reported in 254 ITR 565) as well as in the case of CIT Vs. Pithwa Engg. Works (reported in (2005)276 ITR 519). 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as it does not involve any question of law, much less asubstantial question of law for consideration. (K.R.P.J.) (M.M.S.J.) 21.12.2009 Index : YesInternet : Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench. RS TC(A)NO.1135 OF 2009