Tca/721/2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. C. Subba Reddy, Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.721 and 722 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Chennai... Appellant in both Appeals-vs- M/s.C.Subba Reddy, HUF,Sukrit, 19/1, Third Cross Street,R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 026.PAN: .. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the common order dated 06.10.2016, made inI.T.A.Nos.1834 & 1835/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Chennai in ITA.187/CIR(A)-2/2013-14 and ITA No.215/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 dated 30/3/2016against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxNon CorporateCircle-I, Chennai dated 29/3/14 and 31/12/14 forthe assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar(In both Appeals)Senior Standing Counsel & :Ms.R.HemalathaSenior Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar(In both Appeals) ****** 1 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated06.10.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.1834 & 1835/Mds/2016 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2.The appeals have been admitted on 22.12.2017, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that disallowance made by the AssessingOfficer with regard to the depreciation made onwindmill is to be allowed?(ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad,especially when the vendor, who had sold thewindmill to the assessee, had claimed depreciationfor more than four years and the WDV of thewindmill as on the date of sale was only Rs.26.26lakhs? and(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holdingthat disallowance made under Section 14A read withRule 8D is not proper?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.A.S.Sriraman,learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for therespondent. 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.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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 caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the 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 appeals to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Chennai.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle-I, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.74357+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.75783T.C.A.Nos.721 and 722 of 2017RK(CO)CB(18/11/2019) 3