Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chennai v. M/S.covanta Samalpatti Operating Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-20

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.290 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai...Appellant/Appellant Vs M/s.Covanta Samalpatti Operating Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-20....Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 01.10.2010 made in MA.No.145/Mds/2008 inITA.No.1118/Mds/ 2006 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2001-02,filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Chennai dated 21.02.2006 made in ITA.NO.468/2005-06filed against the Assessment order of the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax Company circle V(1), Chennai 34 dated 31.12.03 forthe Assessment year 2001-2002 in PAN/GIR.NO.AAAC04905F/51150-0. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC andMrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman 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.A.S. Sriraman, 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 dated01.10.2010 made in MA.No. 145/Mds/2008 in ITA.No.1118/Mds/2006on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A'Bench for the assessment year 2001-02. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal was admitted on 23.8.2011 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee's claim towards the insurancepremium should be allowed in toto, eventhough the assessee was following themercantile system of accounting and theinsurance premium could be allowed only fora period of one month i.e. March 2001,applying the matching principle, since theassessee had accounted for income for thesaid month only ? and ii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in dismissingthe miscellaneous application filed by theRevenue in pursuance of the order of theMadras High Court dated 05.9.2008 inTCA.No.1437 of 2008 raising the issue of nonconsideration of ground No.3 raised beforethe Tribunal by stating that the grievanceraised by the Revenue had already been takencare of in the decision given by theTribunal ?” 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 eventthe 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(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(1), Chennai-34. Circle V(1), Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate sr.70611 +1cc to M/s.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate sr.70545 TCA.No.290 of 2011 rsi(co)nr 23/10/2019