Tca/465/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. M/S Tamilnadu State Transport

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR The Commissioner of Income Tax-II,Tiruchirapalli....Appellant M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport,Corporation (Kum-Div-I) Ltd.,Railway Station New Road,Kumbakonam – 612 001. Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalChennai 'B' Bench, dated 04.05.2011 in ITA No.1993/Mds/2009, forthe Assessment year 1994-95 as against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli made inITA No.51/99-00, dated 20.10.2009 as against the order of theJoint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Tiruchirappallifor the Assessment year 1994-95 dated 17.02.2000. [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench, dated 04.05.2011 in ITANo.1993/Mds/2009, for the Assessment year 1994-95. 2.Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned Counsel for theassessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 14.11.2011, on thefollowing Substantial Question of Law:"Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that a provision for 'no faultliability claims against the assessee' could beallowed even if it was as per the Government'sdirections, in the absence of any specificprovision in the Act to allow deduction inrespect of such provisions and such claimpayments could be allowed only on the basis ofactual payments?” 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/- mrm/abr Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1)Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench2)The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Trichirappalli.3)The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,Special Range, Trichirappalli. +1 cc to M/s.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR No.83861 CNR(CO)T.C.A.No.465 of 2011SSM(04/01/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/