The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Mr. N. Raghunath, New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ...AppellantVs Mr. N. Raghunath,New No.19, Old No.9,Judge Jambulingam Street,Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.PAN No: ...Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Madras'A'Bench,dated07.06.2017inI.T.A.No.3223/Mds/2016. Appeal filed against the order ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai dated07/06/2017 in ITA NO.3223/MAS/2016 in Assessment year 2011-2012against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)2, in ITANO.114,185,250/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 & 2014-2015 dated 19/09/2016 PANNO.ACCPR4059E Assessement year 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13against Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax non-corporate circle-2, Chennai PAN NO. Assessment year 2012-2013 againstthe Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Business Range-1, ChennaiPAN NO.ACCPR4059E, Assessment year 2011-2012. Sr. Standing counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residences andthe counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respectiveresidences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A' Bench by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:"(a) Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the large sums of moneyincurredtowardsinteriordecoration,temporary wooden structure erected whichgive to a enduring benefit to the assesseeare revenue expenditure and not capital?(b) Is not the finding of the Tribunal badsince the assessee in its books of accountsmaintained had claimed only 10 %depreciation but for the purpose of income-tax had claimed 100% depreciation ontemporary partition adopting differentialtreatment which is not correct?(c) Should not the Tribunal apply theprinciples laid down in the decision of theApex Court in the case of CIT VsMangayargarsi reported in 315 ITR page 114especially when huge expenditure wereincurred by the Assessee on leased premiseswhich has resulted in enduring benefit andtherefore capital nature?3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated8 August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall notbe filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court incases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore). 4.In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. 5.Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment tothe Respondent/ Assessee in the address given in the Appeal. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Copy to: Mr.N.Raghunata, New no.19,Old no.9, Judge Jambulingam Street,Mylapore, Chennai-600004. +1 cc to M/s.T.Ravi Kumar,Advocate Sr.No. 28053 To 1.The Appellete Tribunal Madras 'A'Bench Chennai Chennai 2.The Commissioner Income Tax Appeals-2 No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. 3.Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate circle-2, Chennai 4.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Range-II, Chennai T.C.A.No.862 of 2017 VSN-II(CO)RV(22/09/2020)