Commissioner Of Income Tax -I, Chennai v. M/S.aig Home Finance India Ltd., Chennai-17

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.459 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai ...Appellant/AppellantVsM/s.AIG Home Finance India Ltd.,Chennai-17. ...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 05.5.2011 made in ITA.No.2167/Mds/2010 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2005-06, against the order dated 30/09/2010 made in ITATr.No.4/2010/A,III on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai, and against the order dated 20/12/2017on the file of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Banglore in PAN/GIR No.AACW1328G the Assessment Year 2005-06. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent:Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated05.5.2011 made in ITA.No. 2167/Mds/2010 on the file of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2005-06. 3. The appeal was admitted on 04.1.2012 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in confirmingthat deletion of the disallowance of 50% ofthe claim made by the assessee underbrokerage purely relying on norm of 2%brokeragefordepositmobilizationprescribed by the National Housing Bank,overlooking the fact that in the assessee'scase, no details were produced as to whetherthe eight persons to whom the brokerage waspaid had actually mobilized deposits ? Andii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe Assessing Officer was not justified inrestricting the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) to Rs.1,48,39,750/- as against theassessee's claim of Rs.2,70,00,000/- eventhough such restriction related to incomefrom securitization, processing fee andadministrative charges, which could not beconsidered as income 'derived from' thebusiness of providing long term housingfinance, but could at best be consideredonly as income incidental to or attributableto the said business?” 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 08.8.2019 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai.3.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, Bangalore.4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangolare Bench 'A'.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.70546+1cc to Mr.Subramaniya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate Sr.71041TCA.No.459 of 2011nr[co]srg 23/10/2019