Tca/601/2011 Of Commissioner Ofincome Tax-I v. M/S Chettinad Cement Corpn Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.8.2019 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.601 of 2011 APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 22.6.2011 made in ITA.No.1235/Mds/2008 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 1993-94 against the Order of the Income Tax(Appeals) made in ITA No133/2007-08, dated 07.03.2008 againstthe Order u/s.143(3) R/W section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961dated 30.10.2006 in G.I No./PAN:AAACC3130 A order of the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I (3) Chennai , madein PAN/G.I.No. . Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.A.S. Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated22.6.2011 made in ITA.No. 1235/Mds/2008 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 1993-94. 3. The appeal was admitted on 06.2.2012 on the followingsubstantial question of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in treating thegain of Rs.86.02 lakhs obtained by theassessee on the cancellation of the forwardcover contract with HSBC Bank taken to coverthe risk of exchange rate fluctuations ascapital receipt, ignoring the fact that theagreement did not show that it was specificto the import of plant and machinery and theforward contract did not go through its fullterm till the repayment and the assessee hadcanceled the contract only to make a quickgain from the exchange rate fluctuations ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial question of law framed is left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals - VIII, Chennai 3.The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I (3) Chennai . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.No.70606/19+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.70548/19 Kak(01/11/2019)