Tca/409/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.m.p.narayanan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.409 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai .... Appellant -vs- Mr.M.P.Narayanan ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'A' Bench, dated 26.05.2006 in ITA No.1464/Mds/2003, forthe Assessment year 1995-96. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IX 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34 in ITA/AppealNo.138/2001-2002 dated 12/05/2003 in GIR No./PAN No.AAAFM246Tagainst the Assessment order dated 17/01/2002 in PAN/GIRNo.51355-M for the Assessment Year 95-96 on the file of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range VI, Chennai-34. For Appellant: Mr.S.Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s..Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan J U D G M E N T This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'A' Bench, dated 26.05.2006 in ITA No.1464/Mds/2003, forthe Assessment year 1995-96. 2. Heard Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mr.Venkata Narayanan, learned counsel forthe respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. This Appeal has been filed raising the followingSubstantial Question of Law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatpenalty under Section 271(1)(C) cannot be leviedin a case where the assessee filed its returnunder the VDIS but failed to pay the tax?". 4. We have perused the order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed forconsideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at a later pointof time, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (svki)To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IX 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range VI, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate Sr.86061 T.C.A.No.409 of 2011 ks[co]srg 30/01/2019