The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.biomed Hitech Industries Ltd., Chennai-110

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.815 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...AppellantVsM/s.Biomed Hitech Industries Ltd.,Chennai-110 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 25.5.2016 made in ITA.No.1155/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2007-08. Against the Appellate order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)(C)-II, Chennai-34, dated31/01/2014 in ITA No.350/13-14 & ITA.No.584/09-10/A-III dated08/09/2011, and against the Assessment order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Article 1(3)-Chennai, dated 24/12/2009 ind GIR/PAN AAACB 19539 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.M.P. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for therespondent - assessee.2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 25.5.2016 made in ITA.No.1155/Mds/2014on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year2007-08. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 29.11.2016 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the disallowance ofclaim of CENVAT credit is not mistakeapparent from record which could berectified under Section 154 ? andii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by holding that rectification underSection 154 is not proper especially whendisallowing the claim of CENVAT credit hasno bearing on revenue recognized and theexpenditure claimed does not relate to therelevant year and therefore, would be apatently inadmissible expenditure ?” 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. To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)(C)-II, Chennai-34,3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Article1(3), Chennai3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Article1(3), Chennai ev(co)rr ii (07/09/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/