Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax [(2004) 266 Itr 521]?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.68 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income-tax-VIII,Chennai.... Appellant/Appellant-vs- M/s. Prime International presently Known asPrime International India Pvt. Ltd, No.723/2,M.B.T.Road, Cross Ranipet-623 503.(PAN : )... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, dated 07.05.2010, passed inM.P.No.49/Mds/2010 in I.T.A.No.785/Mds/2008 for the assessmentyear 2001-02 as agaist the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax(Appeals)-IV, Chennai-34 Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/CHE/238/06-07,dated 31.03.2009 as against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Vellore made in GIR.No.11318-P/2001-02, dated 16.06.2005. For Appellant:M/s.V.PushpaStanding Counsel JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directed againstthe order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Chennai, dated 07.05.2010, passed in M.P.No.49/Mds/2010 inI.T.A.No.785/Mds/2008 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2.Heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue. 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 22.02.2011, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income-TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law indismissing the Miscellaneous Petition filed bythe revenue on the ground that there is no primafacie mistake apparent from order even thoughthe issue is covered by the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2004) 266ITR 521]? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal was right in dismissing theMiscellaneous Petition filed against the orderof the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITANo.785/Mds/2009 even though the Act is not validand deleted the addition made by the assessingofficer?" 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, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law, framed forconsideration, are left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point oftime, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in theCircular. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cse To 1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)IV, Chennai-34 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vellore.Vellore. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.80340 Tax Case (Appeal) No.68 of 2011 CNR(CO) CS/09/01/2019