The Commissioner Of Income Tax Pondicherry v. Dr.b.hari Hari Hospitals, Trichy Trunk Road, Villupuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case Appeal No.858 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Pondicherry..... Appellant/AppellantVs. Dr.B.HariHari Hospitals, Trichy Trunk Road, Villupuram. .... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 29.12.2008 made inITA No.1228/Mds/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. and against the Order dated 29.02.2008 made in ITA.No.64/2007-2008 Assessment Year 2001-2002 on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax Appeals XII, Chennai 34 and againstthe Assessment Order dated 29.12.2006 made in AAPH2978N 21705Hfor the Assessment Year 2001 -2002 on the file of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Sr. Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar J U D G M E N T(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated29.12.2008 made in ITA No.1228/Mds/2008 for the Assessment Year2001-02 by raising the following substantial questions of law:"(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of theRevenue merely on the ground that the tax effect wasless than the minimum specified in the BoardInstruction without going into the merits of thecase? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in holding that the monetarylimit specified in Board Instruction No.1979 dated27.02.2000 was applicable without considering theinstruction of Board dated 29.06.2000 prescribingthe tax effect has to be considered taking intoaccount all the assessment year for which theappeals are being filed at one point of time?" 2. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counselappearing for the Revenue that even though the name of therespondent is mentioned as Dr.B.Hari, Read (India) Ltd., thecorrect name of the respondent is Dr.B.Hari, which may be seenfrom the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. In view of the above, the name of the respondent beread as 'Dr.B.Hari' instead of 'Dr.B.Hari, Read (India) Ltd.' 4. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 5. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. sl 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal XII, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. Appeal XII, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Cuddalore. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry. Pondicherry. KJ(CO)GN(07/01/2019) TCA No.858 of 2009