Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Corporate Circle 3(2),Chennai v. M/S.victor Shipping Agencies Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.11.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.40 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax,Corporate Circle 3(2),Chennai. .... Appellant /Respondent -vs- M/s.Victor Shipping Agencies Private Limited,27/A, Mooker Nallamuthu Street,Chennai-600 001.PAN: AAACV 3703G. ...Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalChennai “B” Bench, dated 26.06.2015 in I.T.A.No.497/Mds/2014,for the assessment year 2003-04, against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Chennai 600 034 madein ITA No.1068/2013-14 dated 29/11/2013 for the Assessment Year2003-04 and against the order passed by the Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax Company Circle III(4) Chennai 600 034 made in 317-V/AAACV 3703G dated 29/11/2010 for the Assessment Year 2003-04and against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle III(4), Chennai made in GIR No./PAN317-V/AAACV 3703G dated 31/01/2006 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan,Senior Standing Counseland Ms.V.Pushpa,Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent :No Appearance JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, is directed againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “B”Bench, dated 26.06.2015 in I.T.A.No.497/Mds/2014, for theassessment year 2003-04. 2.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counseland Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3.The above appeal has been admitted on 01.02.2016, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin quashing the reopening assessment withoutconsidering that the assessee company has claimedexpenses on 'repair and maintenance of containers'without noting that the assessee company does notown any containers? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin quashing the reopening assessment withoutconsidering the case on merits?” 4.We have perused the order of assessment as well as theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, this appealis dismissed and the substantial questions of law, framed for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration, are left open. The Revenue is at liberty to seekfor restoration of appeal if at a later point of time, it isfound that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or tofall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “B” Bench. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III (4), Chennai. Company Circle III (4), Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle III(4), Chennai-34. Company Circle III(4), Chennai-34. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)III, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 034. 5.The Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.76132 T.C.A.No.40 of 2016 sr[co]srg 14/12/2018