Principal Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal No.760 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCentral 1, 108, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034. Appellant Vs. M/s.Rocky Marketing (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.No.3/8, Mayor Sambandam Street,Rangarajapuram, Chennai 600 024. PAN: AABCR 0196GRespondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 5.2.2018 made in ITANo.1707/Mds/2017, against the order passed by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai dated 17/05/2017 in ITANo.30/16-17 for the Assessment year 2013-14 passed U/s 250(4)r.w.s 143(3) against the assessment order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai dated17.0.2016. For Appellant : Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For respondent : Mr.C.Mohan This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 5.2.2018 madein ITA No.1707/Mds/2017, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in lawin directing the Assessing Officer to apply theratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. V. CIT reported in288 ITR 1, by ignoring the fact that the saidjudgment is under re-consideration by the Hon'bleSupreme Court?ii) Whether the ITAT is correct in law in remittingthe assessment back to the assessing officer to dothe same again afresh, without ascertaining whetherthere exists any commercial exigency as claimed bythe assessee, in the transaction of diversion of itsinterest bearing funds to its sister concern asinterest-free advance?ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT is correct in law in makingobservation that the aspect with respect to theactivities of the group companies are not broughtout by the assessing officer to examine thecommercial exigency, whereas, the real onus liesupon the assessee to prove such commercial exigencyand the addition was made as the assessee failed todischarge such onus?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1, 108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax, Central Circle I (1), Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai. Chennai. +1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.25922 PP(CO)SSM(30/05/2019). TCA No.760 of 2018