Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Shri.r.krishnamoorthy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.560 and 561 of 2017and C.M.P.No.13961 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3,No.63, Race Course Road,Coimbatore. .. Appellant in both Appeals -vs- Shri.R.Krishnamoorthy,69, Karumarampalayam,Uthukuli Main Road, Mannarai P.O.,Tirupur-641 607.PAN: AGE PR 2757 B.. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the common order dated 09.11.2016, made inI.T.A.Nos.1599 & 2005/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year2011-12. against the order dated 3113/2015 in ITA.No. 83/2014-15 onthe file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3,Coimbatore. Against the order date 26/03/2014 made in PAN AGE PR 2757 Bon the file of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TiruppurRange, Tiruppur to te Assessment Year 2011-12. For Respondent:(In both Appeals) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated09.11.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.1599 & 2005/Mds/2015 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeals were admitted on 31.10.2017, on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of CIT(A), who deleted Rs.16 lakhs beingcash credit, without appreciating that the CIT(A)has not called for a Remand Report from theAssessing Officer and thus violating Rule 46A ofthe Income Tax Rules? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal iscorrect in deleting the addition of Rs.97,00,000/-being trade advances, even though the liabilityhas been carried forward for years in the books,the assessee had not been able to provideconfirmation from creditors? and (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal iscorrect in deleting the addition of Rs.97,00,000/-being trade advances, when the assessee vide itsletter dated 17.03.2014 requested further time toget the details/confirmations from the creditorsand never produced any evidence before the twoappellate authorities?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counselassisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant – and Mr.K.Surendar, learned counsel for therespondent. 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.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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 this case is lessthan 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 is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CCC)//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Coimbatore.3.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruppur Range, Tiruppur.+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 75125T.C.A.Nos.560 and 561 of 2017RSV(CO)GN(13/11/2019)