Tca/1001/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Akct Chidambaram Cotton Mills

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.1001 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai... Appellant/Appellant-vs- AKCT Chidambaram Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.,No.12, (Old No.22), Haddows Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006... Respondent/Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the order dated 28.02.2014, on the file of theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, inI.T.A.No.530/Mds/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08against the order of the Commissioner of Income tax appealsIII dated 10.12.2012 in ITA.NO.274/09-10/A III in theAssessment Year 2007-2008. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax Company Circle 1(1) chennai dated 07.12.2009 in AAFCA2962B/AX6.784 in the Assessment Year 2007-2008 For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar,Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent :Mr.A.S.Sriraman,for Mr.S.Sridhar This appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue under Section260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against theorder dated 28.02.2014, passed by the Income-tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.530/Mds/2013 forthe assessment year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The above appeal was admitted on 01.12.2014, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in law indeleting the addition made by the AssessingOfficer in the hands of the assessee companyunder Section 2(22)(e) of the Act?(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was correct in law in interpretingthe provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of theAct? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theaddition under Section 2(22)(e) could nothave been made in assessee's hand who is nota shareholder of M/s.Shri Indira Cotton MillsP Ltd., without considering the fact thatShri A.L.Chidambaram is a common shareholderin both the companies i.e., in the assesseecompany as well as in the lending companyi.e., M/s.Shri Indira Cotton Mills P Ltd.(SICMP)?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel forMr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenueon account of the low tax effect in terms of CircularNo.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit forfiling or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has beenincreased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that thetax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above taxcase appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The substantial questions of law framed are left open. Inthe event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixedin the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue tomake a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to beheard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle I(1), Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.3.The Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai 90. Rajaji Bhavan,Besant Nagar,Chennai+1cc to Mr.Ravi Kumar , Advocate SR.No. 72360+1cc to Mr.Sridhar , Advocate SR.No. 72502T.C.A.No.1001 of 2014A.SK(31/10/2019)