The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.concernia Virginia Chennaipvt. Ltd., Chennai-3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.8.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.113 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs. M/s.Concernia Virginia ChennaiPvt. Ltd., Chennai-3....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 02.9.2015 made in ITA.No.816/Mds/2015 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2008-09, against the order dated 29.12.2014,made in ITA.No.157/2010-11/A-1 on the file of the Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Chennai for the Assessment year2008-09, against the order dated 30.11.2010, made inGIR/PAN.No. on the file of the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Company Circle -1(3), Chennai -34, for theAssessment year 2008-09. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCRespondent:served and no appearance 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 – Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated02.9.2015 made in ITA.No. 816/Mds/2015 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessmentyear 2008-09. 1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal was admitted on 16.2.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that when an advancereceived for commercial transaction isreclassified as unsecured loan in the booksof account, then such amount received cannotbe treated as deemed dividend under Section2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? andii. Whether the reasoning of the Tribunalis proper while deleting the additions madeunder Section 2(22)(e) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 ?" 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar +1 cc to M/s.T.Ravikumar,Advocate Sr.No. 75260 AKM/16.12.19/2P-3C / 2/2