Commissioner Of Income Tax -Itiruchirapalli v. Stm.v.poongothaino

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case Appeal No.627 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax -ITiruchirapalli. .... Appellant Vs. Stm.V.PoongothaiNo.26, Ramanujam Nagar,Karur. .... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.11.2009 made inITA No.676/Mds/2009 for the Assessment year 2004-05. and againstthe order dated:19/02/2009 and made in ITA.484/06-07 on the fileof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli andagainsttheorderdated:19/12/2006andmadeinPAN/GIR.No.AAGPP5603A on the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-II, Tiruchirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Sr. Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated13.11.2009 made in ITA No.676/Mds/2009 for the Assessment year2004-05. by raising the following substantial questions of law:"(1) Whether on the facts and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances of the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in confirming the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting theadditions of Rs.12,61,615/- for the AY 2004-05 andRs.5,33,595/- for the AY 2005-06 made by theAssessing Officer by adopting the global method ofvaluation of closing stock for shares whereas theassessee had adopted scrip-wise valuation which gavea distorted picture of the value of closing stock?(2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case,the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in accepting the assessee'scontention that the assessee had a right to chooseits own method of valuation of closing stock ofshares contrary to the decision of the Supreme Courtin the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. BritishPaints Ltd., 188 ITR 44 wherein it was held that theAssessing Officer was duty bound to work out thecorrect profits by adopting the correct method ofvaluation of closing stock?” 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is less than themonetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal is dismissed asnot pressed, preserving the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai. Chennai 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Tiruchirapalli.Tiruchirapalli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment , Tiruchirapalli-620 001. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-II No.44, Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.82508 +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.83220 VD(CO)GSP(10/01/2019) TCA No.627 of 2010