The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.rajparis Civil Constructions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 21.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.504 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs. M/s.Rajparis Civil Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-6....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 26.7.2012 made in ITA.No.1191/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07 and against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -VI, Chennai -34, dated10/03/2011 and made in ITA.No.90/10-11 and against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3),Chennaidated11/12/2008andmadeinPAN./G.I.No.AACR1734M/53213-R for the assessment year 2006-07.For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC &Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent :Mr.Sathiyaseelan 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.Sathiyaseelan, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated26.7.2012 made in ITA.No. 1191/Mds/2011 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for theassessment year 2006-07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal was admitted on 05.2.2013 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holdingthat the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is not always duty bound toconsider a claim, which was never beforehim ? andii. Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in notinterfering with the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thoughthe assessee was only a contractor carryingout works contract and is not eligible fordeduction under Section 80IB(10)?” 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 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VI,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Company Circle -V(3), Chennai. +1 cc to M/s.T.Ravikumar,Advocate Sr.No. 71102 AKM/19.11.19/3P-5C / TCA.No.504 of 2012