The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.wheel India Ltd., Chennai-50

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.579 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant/RespondentVs M/s.Wheel India Ltd., Chennai-50 ...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 26.11.2013 made in ITA.No.2136/Mds/2010 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC &Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan forM/s.Subbarayar Aiyer Padmanabhan 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.R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofM/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, learned counsel on record forthe respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 26.11.2013 made in ITA.No.2136/Mds/2010on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2007-08. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 23.7.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“1. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunalwasrightinentertainingadditional grounds on the issue ofdisallowance of loan arising from sales taxliability, which does not arise out of orderof the CIT(A) nor the assessment order? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in law in holding thatthe difference between sales tax loan amountand the amount paid on net present valuebasis under sales tax deferral scheme of theMaharashtra Government is not a remission ofliability under Section 41(1) of the IncomeTax Act?" 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)Large tax payer unit II floor, 1775, Jaweherlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar western Extension, Chennai-600101. unit II floor, 1775, Jaweherlal Nehru Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar western Extension, Chennai-600101. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax payer, Unit, Chennai. Unit, Chennai. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. TCA.No.579 of 2015 AD (CO)RV (04/09/2020)