The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. Shri V.muthusamy

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.218 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore ...Appellant Vs Shri V.Muthusamy, Proprietor,M/s.Spic Tex International (initial stands corrected in thisorder) ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 17.10.2013 made in ITA.No.966/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2008-09 and against the order ofITA.No.135/10-11 date 28.2.2013 on the file of the commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)II, Coimbatore and the against theAssessmentorderdate30-12-2010madeinPANNO/GIR.NO.AEPPM9566E Assessment year 2008-09 on the file ofAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Tirupur. For Respondent:Mr.R.Kumar for Mr.T.N.SeetharamanJudgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Kumar, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, learnedcounsel on record for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 17.10.2013 made in ITA.No.966/Mds/2013on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 14.7.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i.Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) directing theAssessing Officer to delete the addition ofdeemed dividend ? and ii.Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatdepreciation as per the Income Tax Act isrequired to be considered for calculatingaccumulated profits for the purpose ofdetermination of deemed dividend underSection 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax 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. It is further submitted by the learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that thecorrect initial of the assessee is 'V' and not 'K' as shown inthe grounds of appeal. 5. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counselappearing for the respondent – assessee. Hence, the saidsubmission is recorded and the initial of the respondent –assessee shall stand corrected as 'V'. Registry shall correctthe initial of the respondent - assessee in the grounds ofappeal also. 6. 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 said circular, 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 To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II Coimbatore.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Tirupur.TCA.No.218 of 2014RLD (CO)RV (04/09/2020)