Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichy v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy.... AppellantVs. Smt.U.Srilakshmi25, Pandamangalam Agraharam,Woraiyur, Trichy – 620 003.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “D” Bench, dated 11.07.2011 in I.TA.No.676/Mds/2011,Assessment Year 2007-08 against the Order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals), Tiruchirappalli, dated 11/01/2011 inITA.No.174/09-10, G.I.No./PAN.No. for the Assessmentyear 2007-2008 against the order of the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Company Circle-II(i/c), Trichy, dated 31/12/2009in PAN/GIR.No. for the Assessment year 2007-2008. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 11.07.2011 made in I.TA.No.676/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 25.08.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the Assessing Officer hadrejected the books of account on the basis ofmere suspicion? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the gross profit is to be fixedat 14.97% by the Assessing Officer is notsustainable? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the individual payments cannot beaggregated even if they are paid on the same dayand thereby erred in deleting the disallowanceunder Section 40-A(3)? 4.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin deleting the disallowance made under Section40-A(3) on the ground that said disallowancecannot be made where the Assessing Officer hadestimated the gross profit?” 4.The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitsthat the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on accountof the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By thesaid 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Trichy. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle-I(I/c), Trichy. +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.NO..18934+1cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel, SR.NO..No.18938AKM/27.04.21/3P-7C/ T.C.A.No.237 of 201423.03.2021