Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.elred Kumar Santhanam

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.7 and 8 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. .. Appellant in bothAppeals -vs- Shri.Elred Kumar Santhanam,20, Alagesan Street,West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.PAN: AAD PE 2378 L.. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the common order dated 20.01.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.85& 86/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12respectively, against the order dated 25/09/2014 made inITA.NOs.318/2013-14 & 227/2014-15 passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals)-II, Chennai and against the order dated23/03/13 and 27/03/14 passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2/c), Circle -I, Tambaram Range, Tambaram for theassessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. For Appellant:Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,(In both Appeals)Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Standing Counsel For Respondent :Mr.R.Kumar(In both Appeals) (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 dated 1/3 20.01.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.85 & 86/Mds/2015 on the file ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2.The appeals were admitted on 23.01.2017, on the followingsubstantial question of law:-“Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in deleting thedisallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) in theyear under consideration as the statutoryprovisions are amply clear and in the context ofsection 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the term 'payable'would include amounts which are paid during theprevious year?” 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel forthe appellant – and Mr.R.Kumar, 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 these cases isless 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 question of law framed is 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC)//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 2/3 abr To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)II, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(2/c) Circle-I, Tambaram Range, Tambaram.Tambaram Range, Tambaram. T.C.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2017 sai(co) nr 13/11/2019 3/3