The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.g.f.securities, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.1055 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...AppellantVsM/s.G.F.Securities, Chennai...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated26.5.2010madeinITA.No.1215/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessmentyear 2006-07 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-VI,chennai 34 dated 16.07.2009 andmade in ITA.No 91/08-09 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Incometaxm Circle-I,Chennai 34 dated 03.12.2008 and made inPAN/GIR NO. AAEFG 1475 D for the Assessment Year 2006-2007.For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue andMr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the orderdated 26.5.2010 made in ITA.No. 1215/Mds/2009 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07. 3. The appeal was admitted on 09.11.2010 on thefollowing substantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right indeleting the disallowance made by theAssessing Officer holding that the debtwas transacted in the course of theassessee's business when there was aclear finding by the First AppellateAuthority that the debt was nottransacted in the course of conductingof the business and that shouldering ofloan of the sister concern by theassessee is not at all found related toits business ? andii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was right incoming to the conclusion referred to inthe preceding question, which wasdiametrically opposed to the Tribunal'sown conclusion in the original order byrecalling the said order, which isbeyond the scope of Section 254(2) ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenueon account of the low tax effect in terms of CircularNo.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit forfiling or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has beenincreased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that thetax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above taxcase appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect.The substantial questions of law framed are left open. Inthe event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue tomake a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to beheard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(insp cell) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ToTHE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI 'C'BENCH.CHENNAI 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I,CHENNAI 34 3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI,CHENNAI 34 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar , Advocate SR.No. 70060+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.No. 70083TCA.No.1055 of 2010svA.SK(15/10/2019)