Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. Upasana Finance Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.132 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- Upasana Finance Ltd.,96/1 Luz Church Road,Chennai-600 004... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras'B'Bench,Chennaidated20.01.2006inI.T.A.No.1325/Mds/99 for the assessment year 1996-97 preferredagainst the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) X,Chennai made in I.T.Appeal No.ITA.76/99-2000, dt.5.7.1999 andfiled against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,Spl.Range XI, Chennai in GIR.No.4-U, dt.26.3.1999. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan, Standing Counsel For Respondent :No Appearance JUDGMENT [Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench,Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1325/Mds/99 for the assessment year 1996-97dated 20.01.2006. 2.The above appeal has been admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law. “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in deleting thehire purchase and lease rentals accrued on “non-performing assets”? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee can be allowed to account for income fromnon-performing assets alone on a cash basis, when itis following a mercantile system of accounting, andhybrid system is not allowed under the Income TaxAct?” 3.Before we examine the questions of law, we first perusethe material papers to ascertain the tax effect in the instantcase. From the assessment order dated 26.03.1999, we find thatthe tax effect is only Rupees 46,85,013/-, which is less thanthe threshold limit prescribed under the circular issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes dated 11.07.2018. 4.Thus, on the said ground alone, this appeal is dismissedand the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr/tta To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Spl. Range XI, Chennai. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) X Chennai. +1cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.58965 CP(CO)sM:18.9.2018 Tax Case (Appeal) No.132 of 2007