Commissioner Of Income Tax - I,Chennai v. Dr.c.natesan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.12.2018 CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal Nos.260, 276 & 277 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax - I,Chennai. ...Appellant in all the appeals -vs- Dr.C.Natesan,Prop:Bharathiraja Hospital & ResearchCentre, No.11, Madley Road, T.Nagar,Chennai – 600 017. ...Respondent in all the appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the common order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 10.12.2010 passed in ITANos.2173 to 2175/Mds/2008, for the assessment years 1999-2000,2000-01, 2001-02 respectively. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravi Kumar (in all the appeals)For Respondent :Mr.A.S.Sriram for Mr.S.Sridhar (in all the appeals)JUDGMENT These Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 10.12.2010 passedin ITA Nos.2173 to 2175/Mds/2008, for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 respectively against the order dated23/07/2008 and made in ITA Nos. 237 to 239/ 2006 on the file ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai and againstthe order dated 28/12/06 and made in GIR No/PAN AAAPN745813 onthe file of Income Tax Officer, Business ward – I(4), Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard M/s.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenueand Mr.A.S.Sriram, learned Counsel for the assessee. 3.These Appeals have been raised on the followingSubstantial Questions of Law:Assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 "(i)Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that the Assessing Officercould not made any additions to the returnedincome even though the assessee failed toproduce the Books of Account inspite of severalopportunities given on the grounds that theassessee had filed Tax Audit Reports in Forms3CD and 3CB?(ii)Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in omitting to consider theindividual Grounds of Appeal raised for theassessment year separately, in the process ofpassing a consolidated order?Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 (iii)Whetheronthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee could file revised returns afterfiling the returns in compliances to noticesu/Sec.148 even though such revised returnscould not be considered as valid returns withinthe meaning given u/Sec.139(5)? Assessment year 2000-01 (iv)Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in not considering the specificgrounds of appeal made by the Revenue to theeffect that the revised returns claimingdeductions not claimed in the original returnswere invalid? Assessment year 2001-02 (v)Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in not considering the specificground of appeal raised by the Revenue statingthat the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was timebarred and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had not considered this aspect atall?” 4.We have perused the common order of Assessment as well asthe Common Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and wefind that the tax effect in these appeals are lesser than thethreshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, whichfixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department topursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been ableto point out any distinguishing features, by which the CircularNo.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was timebarred and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had not considered this aspect atall?” 4.We have perused the common order of Assessment as well asthe Common Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and wefind that the tax effect in these appeals are lesser than thethreshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, whichfixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department topursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been ableto point out any distinguishing features, by which the CircularNo.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethese Appeals in view of the low tax effect. Hence, theseAppeals are dismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law,framed for consideration, are left open. No costs. TheRevenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at alater point of time, it is found that the tax effect is abovethe threshold limit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// mrm/abr Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI, Chennai. 4.The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward I (4), Chennai.+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.83439 VD(CO)rrs 27/12/2018