Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai v. Shri K.sivakumarc/O. Cngsn & Associates20, Raja Street, T. Nagarchennai - 600 017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.07.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.627 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Madurai... Appellant/Respondent v. Shri K.SivakumarC/o. CNGSN & Associates20, Raja Street, T. NagarChennai - 600 017 PAN : AJTPS 5869H ... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Madras 'B' Bench, dated 05.09.2008 in ITANo.2163/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04 against theorder passed by the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II,Madurai made in PAN/GIR No. order dated 31/07/2007 forthe Assessment year 2003-04 against the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli made inPAN/GIR No.AJTPS5869H order dated 08/06/2007 for the Assessmentyear 2003-04 against the order passed by the commissioner ofIncome Tax-II, Madurai made in C.No.114/7/(IT-II/2006-07 orderdated 28/03/2007 for the Assessment year 2003-04 against theorder passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-I, Tirunelveli made in PAN/GIR.No.AJTPS 5896H order dated30/03/2006 for the Assessment year 2003-2004 For Appellant :Mr. M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T[Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] For Respondent : No appearance Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.2163/Mds/2007 dated 05.09.2008. The appeal has been admittedon the following substantial question of law:- “ (i) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissingthe appeal filed against the giving effect order onthe ground that the order of the CIT u/s 263 hasbeen quashed even though the appeal against eh samehas been admitted is pending before this court? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatexpenditure on construction of building in aleasehold premises would amount to revenueexpenditure, contrary to the clear provisions ofExplanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Income TaxAct ? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thateven though the introduction of Explanation 1 toSection 32 was not brought to the notice of thiscourt in the case of Hari Vignesh Motors, and theappeal was dismissed as covered by the SupremeCourt judgement in the case of Madras Auto Servicefor a year subsequent to the amendment, it wouldform a binding precedent ?” 3. Before we proceed to consider the substantialquestions of law raised in this appeal, we have to first takenote of the fact that the tax effect in the present appealrelevant for the assessment year 2003-04 is less than thethreshold limit. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem v. N.Meenakshisundaram [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.868 and 869of 2008; Dated 23.04.2018], this Court had an occasion toconsider various circulars issued by the Central Board of DirectTaxes (CBDT) as regards the threshold limits fixed for filingthe appeals by the Revenue or pursue the appeals, which arepending from 2008 onwards. 4. Further, it is relevant to note that by CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, monetary limit has further beenincreased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts.It has been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have been filed. 4. Further, it is relevant to note that by CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, monetary limit has further beenincreased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts.It has been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have been filed. 5.Thus, by applying the above Circular issued by theCBDT, this appeal ought not to have been filed or pursued by theRevenue and hence, for that reason, this Tax Case Appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions of law, framed forconsideration, are left open. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CCC) // True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Madurai4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli+1cc to Mr.M.SWAMINATHAN, Advocate SR.No.51289T.C.A.No.627 of 2009SR(CO)SMI/14.08.2018