Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34 v. Mr.karthik Ranganathan, Sc

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 02.1.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMand The Honourable Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal Nos.626 & 627 of 2017 & CMP.No.15835 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34 ...Appellant VsM/s.ETA Star Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,Chennai-34...Respondent ...Appellant Vs APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 05.10.2016 in ITA Nos.469 and470/Mds/ 2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'A' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10and 2012-13 respectively against the orders of Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals)-6, Chennai dated 23/12/2015. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SCFor Respondent :Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar for Mr.G.Baskar.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. These appeals by the Revenue challenge the common orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which decided theissue in favour of the assessee. These appeals are filed by theRevenue by raising the following substantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in remitting back the issue to thefile of the Assessing Officer with adirection to verify the books of accounts ofthe assessee whether the service commissionwas debited when the sales made and if theassessee charged service commission as soonas the sales was made, the claim of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessee is to be allowed, as it was relatedto the sales of air conditioners ? Andii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in remitting back the issue, when, asper the assessee's own version, it wouldreverse the service commission after a lapseof three years and this shows that theprovision created was a contingent liabilityand not an ascertained one?” 3. The Revenue seeks to withdraw these appeals on account oflow tax effect in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 4. In the light of the above, these appeals are dismissed aswithdrawn and the substantial questions of law raised are leftopen. In the event, in any any of the appeals, the tax effect isabove the threshold limit fixed in the said circular underexceptional clauses mentioned in the circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits.Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) To //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai -34. Chennai -34. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai. Chennai. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -2(1),Chennai -34. Corporate Circle -2(1),Chennai -34. +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.25. CP(CO)rrs 27/02/2019 TCA.Nos.626 & 627 of 2017and CMP.No.15835 of 2017