Commissioner Of Income Tax Salem v. M/S.namagiri Lakshmi Transport57, Salem Road, Namakkal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29.11.2018 CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Commissioner of Income Tax Salem. .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Namagiri Lakshmi Transport57, Salem Road, Namakkal... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 6.6.2008 made in IT(SS)A No.68/Mds/2006. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Coimbatore made in I.T.A.No.332-C/04-05, orderdated 09.01.2006 in the Block Assessment for block period01.04.1996 to 14.11.2002 and against the order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem in PAN/GIRNo.CCFN-006/PAN-AAANO178K, order dated 29.11.2004. For respondent : M/s.R.Jeevitha This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated6.6.2008 made in IT(SS)A No.68/Mds/2006, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:"(i) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deleting the addition of Rs.65 lakhs assessed asundisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firmin the assessment made under Section 158BC for theblock assessment period 1.4.1996 to 14.11.2002, eventhough the partnerof thesellerfirmM/s.K.P.R.&Co., had admitted in their swornstatements about the payment and receipt of the saidamount in the purchase and sale of six tankers madeby them respectively? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in holding that there wasenhancement of income in the hands of partners SriElancharan and Sri Velappan by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A) without giving notice to them underSection 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, even thoughthe Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has only reducedthe income assessed in their hands by directing thatonly one sixth of the unaccounted income payment ofconsideration for the tankers should be assessed intheir hands as against one half assessed by theAssessing Officer on a protective basis?" 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk. To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras D Bench, Chennai.Madras D Bench, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Coimbatore.Coimbatore. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle, Salem.Central Circle, Salem. +1 cc to M/s.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.No.82100 +1 cc to M/s.K.K.Senthilvelan, Advocate Sr.No.81813 TCA No.78 of 2009 CP(CO)CSL/11.01.2019