The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai-34 v. Mr.durai Arun Kumar, Chennai-26

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN The Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai-34 ...Appellant/Respondent Vs Mr.Durai Arun Kumar, Chennai-26....Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 04.1.2019 made in ITA.No.1033/Chny/2018 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2013-14 against the order dated 31/01/2018in ITA No.57/CIT(A)-14/2016-17 on the file of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)-14 Chennai-34 against the order dated24/03/2016 vid PAN /GIR on the file of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai-600 034. For Appellant:Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted byMs.V.Pushpa, SC Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated04.1.2019 made in ITA.No. 1033/Chny/2018 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2013-14.3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correctand justified in holding that the 85,000shares were allotted on 22.8.2011 when theshare certificates were issued only on09.8.2012 ? ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal erred inignoring the documentary evidence in theform of balance sheet filed before statutoryauthorities like ROC, IT Department etc.,and to rely on an internal document of aprivate limited company of which theassessee holds 50% shares? Andiii. Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right and justifiedin holding that an internal document of aprivate limited company of which theassessee is the controlling person is moresacrosanct than statutory documents filedcontemporaneously?” 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 raised 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS ) //True copy//Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) -14, Chennai-34 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai-34 Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.75850 TCA.No.286 of 2019 NRL(CO)GMY(16/10/2019)