Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. Dharani Finance Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.08.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.1398 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellant/Respondent -vs- Dharani Finance Ltd.,57, Sterling Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai.... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai dated 27.04.2007 in ITANo.1554/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 1998-99, against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)III, chennai-34, madein Ita.432, 433 & 434/2004-05/A.III, dated 03/05/2005 andagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle I(4)(i/c) Chennai, made in GI.No./PA.No.AAACD1282G dated 30/11/04 for Assessment year 1998/99. For Appellant:Mrs.R.HemalathaSenior Standing Counsel For Respondent :Mr.N.Devanathan ****** JUDGMENT [Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant, and Mr.N.Devanathan, learned counsel for therespondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.This appeal has been admitted on the following substantialquestions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe assessee is entitled to depreciation on theassets involved in a sale and lease backtransaction, when it is merely a financialtransaction? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in relying on theorders pertaining to earlier assessment years, whenExplanation 4A to Section 43(1) is applicable from01.10.1996, and thus applicable to the assessmentyear in question?” 3.Before we proceed to consider the substantial questions oflaw raised in this appeal, we have to first take note of thefact that the tax effect in the present appeal relevant for theassessment year 1998-99 is less than the threshold limit. Inthe case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. N.Meenakshisundaram[Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.868 and 869 of 2008; Dated 23.04.2018],one of us (TSSJ) had an occasion to consider various circularsissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as regardsthe threshold limits fixed for filing the appeals by the Revenueor pursue the appeals, which are pending 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. 5.Thus, by applying the above Circular issued by the CBDT,this appeal ought not to have been filed by the Revenue andhence, for that reason, this tax case appeal is dismissed andthe substantial questions of law, framed for consideration, areleft open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (abr) To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 2.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai. 3.The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle I(4) (i/c) Chennai. Company Circle I(4) (i/c) Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr.no.58432 T.C.(A) No.1398 of 2007 ca(co)nr 11/09/2018