The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.aircel Cellular Services Ltd., Fifth Floor, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.294 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant/AppellantVs M/s.Aircel Cellular Services Ltd.,Fifth Floor, Spencer Plaza,769, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 19.04.2012 made in ITA.No.417/MDS/2009 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2005-06, against the order dated 16/01/2009on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII,Chennai and against the order dated 25/09/2007 on the file ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1(1)Chennai made in GIR No.AAACR5136R for the assessment year 2005-2006. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.Sathish Parasaran JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.Sathish Parasaran,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated19.04.2012 made in ITA.No.417/MDS/2009 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessmentyear 2005-06. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 06.07. 2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that the additionmade by the assessing officer towards provisionsfor doubtful debt for the purpose of computingbook profit under Section 115JB is not proper? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the order of the Tribunal was validespecially in view of the retrospectiveamendment introduced to Section 115JB by FinanceAct, 2009, inserting clause (i) to Explanation(1) to Section 115JB(2) with retrospectiveeffect from 01.04.2001 by which any provisionsfor diminution in the value of the asset is tobe added back while computing book profit underSection 115JB?" 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 questions of law framed are 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-V)//True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cse To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), VIII, Chennai-34 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1(1) Chennai. Company Circle 1(1) Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.73323 TCA.No.294 of 2015 NR(CO)GMY(01/11/2019)