Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central I v. M/S.mailam Subramaniya Swamy Educational Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2019 CORAM : THE HON'BLE DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.673, 674, 677 and 678 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Central I,No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034... Appellant in all appeals -vs- M/s.Mailam Subramaniya Swamy Educational Trust,No.54, Meenatchi Nagar, Poonthotam,Villupuram-605 602.. Respondent in all appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the common order of the Income tax AppellateTribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 06.12.2018 made inITA.No.2086, 2087, 2085 and 2088/Chny/2018 against the Orderdated 02.04.2018 made in ITA Nos.370,113 to 115/17-18 on thefile of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 19(I/C),Chennai -34 and against the Order dated 30.12.2016 passed bythe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3 (3),Chennai for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and2012-13 respectively. These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the common order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated06.12.2018, for the Assessment Years 2010-11; 2011-12; 2009-10and 2012-13 respectively by raising the following commonsubstantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT was right inlaw in holding that the assessing officer cannotinitiate proceedings under Section 153A of the I.T.Act, where there was no incriminating materialfound during the course of search operation u/s.132of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was correct in law in placingreliance on SLP dismissal simpliciter in the caseof PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia (96 taxmann.com 468),when the issue of jurisdiction u/s.153A of the I.T.Act was not at all before the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the said SLP? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was justified indeciding the impugned issue on the basis of SLP(Special Leave Petition) dismissal simpliciter bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MeetaGutgutia, without taking cognizance of the wellsettled ratio that SLP dismissal simpliciter has nobinding effect, as laid down in the cases of CIT v.Geetha Ramakrishna Mills (P) Ltd. (288 ITR 489)(Mad.) and Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR360)(SC)?” 2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, the learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8[th] August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In these cases, the tax effect is said to be less thanthe monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed bythe Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.20305, 20308 and20396 of 2019 are closed. bbr Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, Chennai. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.81966 T.C.(A) Nos.673, 674, 677 and 678 of 2019Kak(05/11/2019)