Shri.r.rajnikant v. Common Judgment (Judgment Was Delivered By T.s.sivagnanam,J

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.1082 and 1083 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...Appellant Shri.R.Rajnikant Vs...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 18.12.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1574and 1575/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04 and2004-05. Preferred against the order dated 17.07.2009 made inITA No.56 and 213/2006-07 on the file of the office of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI Chennai-34 filed againstthe assessment order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Media Circle II, Chennai-34 dated 31.03.2006 and 27.12.2006respectively for the Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-2005. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted byMs.S.Premalatha, SC For Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.Premalatha, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 18.12.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1574 and 1575/Mds/2009 on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 3. The appeals were admitted on 11.1.2001 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the income from themoney lending activity between its friendsand relatives as hand loan without anystipulated terms on the basis ofrelationship, as per the assessee'sadmission during the course of survey had tobe treated as income from business, when theassessee had ratified the statement givenduring the survey by way of revised returnwherein the bad debt claim was withdrawn ?andii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee isentitled for claim of deduction of bad debtfor the assessment year 2006-07?” 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.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 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 the respectivecases is less 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 questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// RS Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle II, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals VI, Chennai-34. Chennai-34. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Range, Chennai-34. Media Range, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.70420 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.No.70084 TCA.Nos.1082 & 1083 of 2010 RSI(CO)GMY(28/10/2020)