The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.sun Metal Factory (I) Pvt. Ltd., L-3, Sidco Industrial Estate, Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellant/AppellantVs. M/s.Sun Metal Factory (I) Pvt. Ltd.,L-3, SIDCO Industrial Estate,Kodungaiyur,Chennai – 600 118.... Respondent/Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “D” Bench, dated 08.04.2011 in I.TA.No.1228/Mds/2010,Assessment Year 1999-2000, preferred against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated05/04/2010 made in ITA No.106/09-10, and against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle IV(2),Chennai-34 dated 30/12/2008 made in PAN/GIR No. forthe Assessment Year 1999-2000. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 08.04.2011 made in I.TA.No.1228/Mds/2010on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D”Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 26.07.2013 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:“1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holding thatSection 150 cannot enlarge the scope of Section149 which givs the time limit for issuance ofnotice? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxTribunal was correct in quashing the reassessmentproceedings initiated by the assessing officer togive effect to the direction of the CIT(A) citingthe limitation for the reassessment given underSection 149 of the Income Tax Act despite thefact that Section 150 of the Income Tax Actspecially provides for no time limit forreassessment directed by Appellate Orders?” 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 08.08.2019 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. //True Copy// mkn To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench Chennai, “D” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(I), Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Cental Circle IV (2), Chennai-34. Cental Circle IV (2), Chennai-34. cp[co]srg 01/07/2021 T.C.A.No.205 of 2013