The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.shanmuga Arts, Science,Technology & Research Academy,Chennai-24

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...Appellant Vs M/s.Shanmuga Arts, Science,Technology & Research Academy,Chennai-24....Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 13.11.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1740and 1741/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04 and2005-06 and against the O/O. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XII, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 made in ITA No.498/07-08order dated 30.05.2008 and against the O/o. Commissioner ofIncome Tax Nungambakkam, Chennai made NoITA No.499/07-08 orderdated 30.05.2008. For Appellant :Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC For Respondent: Mrs.G.Vardhini for M/s.J.Sree Vidya We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant – Revenue and Mrs.G.Vardhini, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 13.11.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1740 and 1741/Mds/2008 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench forthe assessment years 2003-04 and 2005-06. 3. The appeals were admitted on 18.1.2011 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that charging of guaranteecommission at the rate of 1.5% to each ofthe trustees was proper for the assessmentyears 2003-04 and 2005-06 ? andii. Whether the Tribunal was correct innot considering the fact that the trust hadsufficient funds at its disposal as it hadinvested in fixed deposits and had earnedinterest and also had regular source ofincome in the form of fees based on which,it had obtained concessional rate ofinterest, yet paid guarantee commission tothe trustees?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 effects involved in thesecases are less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law raised are left open. In the eventthe tax effects are above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XII, Chennai-34 Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Advocate SR.No.69807 +1cc to M/s.J.Sree Vidya, Advocate SR.No.69025 TCA.Nos.1110 & 1111 of 2010 RR(CO)GMY(26/09/2019)