Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Commissioner of Income Tax I,Tiruchirapalli...Appellant VsM/s.R.K.Textiles, Karur....Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 17.2.2010 made respectively inITA.Nos.426 to 428/ Mds/2009 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment years2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05., against the Deputy Commissionersof Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli in AAA8R6620H dt 16/11/2007/2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05 and against the commissioner of police,Tiruchirpalli in ITA nos.116 to 118/07-08 dated 17/2/2009. COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 17.2.2010 made respectively in ITA.Nos.426 to 428/Mds/2009on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C'Bench for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05. 3. The appeals were admitted on 18.1.2011 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawbackdisclaimed in its favour by the exporter ?ii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawbackdisclaimed in its favour by the exporterwithout taking note of the Third Proviso toSub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC and thedifference between the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (3A) of Section 80HHC ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal had any material to come to theconclusion that the DEPB and duty drawbackbenefit received by the assessee by virtueof disclaimer issued by the exporter in itsfavour, should be regarded as part of saleconsideration when such benefits could notbe treated as export benefits under Section28(iiia) etc., ? Andiv. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Baby Marine Exports [reported in 290ITR 323] was applicable to the assessee'scase without noticing that the said caserelated to export premium whereas in theassessee's case, the issue related to DEPBand duty drawback disclaimed in its favourby the exporter?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy//Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, No.44, Williams Road, cantonment, Tiruchirapalli.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, No.44, Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli.+2cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.70415, 70416+1cc to Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate SR.70270 TCA.Nos.1134 to 1136 of 2010SJ(CO)CB(22/10/2019)