The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pondicherry v. Shri.v.venkatesh, By P.a.holder Shri.n.vadivelu, Propr.m/S.q Max Tools, Sidharth Mehta & Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.7.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.37 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income tax,Pondicherry. .. Appellantvs Shri.V.Venkatesh,by P.A.Holder Shri.N.Vadivelu,Propr.M/s.Q Max Tools,Sidharth Mehta & Co,No.9, Govindappa Naicken Street,1st Floor, Chennai 600 00. . .Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘C’ Bench dated 29.8.2012 in inI.T.A.No.963/Mds/2010 as against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII,Chennai inITA.No.72/09-10 dated 21.03.2020 as against the order passedby the Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(2) Pondicherry inRA.NO./GIR.No.ACUPU538413/5643-V dated of order 14.12.2009 forthe Assessment Year 2004-05. For Respondent : Mr.Ashokapathy for M/s.Pass Associates ORDER (Made by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges atthe respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Courtappearing from their respective residences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai 29.8.2012 inI.T.A.No.963/Mds/2010 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005, byraising the following substantial questions of law: " 1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in justified inallowing relief under Section 80IB when theassessee did not discharge the onus ofproviding the claim on the number of personemployed? 2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in placing theburden of proof on the Assessing Officer andthe CIT(A) when the Assessee claimed deductionfrom his total income based on certainevidences which were doubtful and insufficentto satisfy the claim for allowance? 3) Is not the finding of the Tribunalperverse by placing threatens on thecertificate issued three years later and notpertaining to the previous year in questionwhich is contrary to the another certificateissued by the competent authority? 4) Whether the Tribunal was right ingranting deduction u/s. 80IB especially whenthe Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) hadfound that there were two sets of salaryregister filed before them for accommodatingmore number of employees and for claiming thebenefit?" 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes wide https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rupees 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).4. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appealfiled by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn keeping openthe substantial questions of law for determination inappropriate cases. No order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarsskTo,1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘C’ Bench.2.The Commisioner of Income Tax,Pondicherry3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, 121,Mahathma gandhi Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai.4.The Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(2) PondicherryT.C.A.No.37 of 2013cp coA.SK(15/10/2020)