Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Ii, Coimbatore v. M/S.terrastonne Tiles,(Old) Door

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.03.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADTax Case Appeal No.298 of 2014 Commissioner of Income TaxCentral II, Coimbatore. ...Appellant / Respondent -vs- M/s.Terrastonne Tiles,(Old) Door No.24,Erantkattu Jubilee Nagar,Civil Aerodrome Post,Coimbatore - 641 014.PAN: . ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, Chennai inI.T.A.No.1011/Mds/2013 against the order dated 28.03.2013 madein I / 263 / C-111 / 2012-13 on the file of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central – III, Chennai for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and against the order dated 20.12.2010 made in PAN:AAEFT9606Mon the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore for the Assessment Year 2008-09. For Appellant:Mr.Karthik RanganathanSenior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated29.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C'Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1011/Mds/2013, relating to theassessment year 2008-2009. 2. On 13.08.2014, this appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in quashing theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax underSection 263? (ii)Whether on the facts an in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in ignoring theexpress provision contained in the proviso toSection 69C to the effect that, notwithstandinganything contained in the Act, the unexplainedexpenditure referred to in Section 69C is deemedto be the income of the assessee, shall not beallowed as deduction under any head of income? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that theAssessment order dated 20.12.2010 is noterroneous following the decision of the MadrasHigh Court in the case of CIT Vs. ChensingVentures reported in 291 ITR 258 (Mad) when thefacts of the assessee's case, being coveredunder Section 69C of the Income Tax Act?" 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, thelearned senior standing counsel for the appellant / Revenuebrought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, itis stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is alsosubmitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than thethreshold limit. 4. In view of the above, the present appeal, wherein, thetax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed,is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantialquestions of law for determination in an appropriate case. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msrTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, Coimbatore.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax, Central - II, Coimbatore.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - III, Chennai. Tax Case Appeal No.298 of 2014 SR[co]NSK 01/04/2022