The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai v. Sri.r.s.suriya

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.777 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central II, Chennai ...Appellant/Respondent VsSri.R.S.Suriya ...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 19.1.2010 made in ITA.No.1329/Mds/2009 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07, ITA No.1329/Mds/2009 Assessment Year 2006-2007 order againstthe order dated 02/06/2009 of the I.d.CTT(A)-VI, Chennai andrelates to the Assessment Year 2006-2007 (PAN No.ALRPs 0353G) ITA 596 & 597/mds/2009 against the Composite orders dated17[th] December, 2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai for the Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2005-2006Respectively (PAN ) ITA 258/08-09 dated 02/06/2009 GIR No. , AssessmentYear 2006-07. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.RajnishPathiyil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent –assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated19.1.2010 made in ITA.No. 1329/Mds/2009 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for theassessment year 2006-07. 3. The appeal was admitted on 17.8.2010 on the followingsubstantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe amounts received in advance as per theagreements entered into by the assessee withdifferent entities, promising to renderprofessional services were not taxable asincome, even though the assessee wasfollowing the cash system of accounting ?” 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(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai. Central II, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle -II, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Media Circle -II, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B' Chennai. Bench 'B' Chennai. 5.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.Rajanish Pathiyil, Advocate Sr.70021 +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.70425 TCA.No.777 of 2010 ln[co]srg 01/10/2019