The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. Mr. N. Raghunath,New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.863 of 2017 &C.M.P.No.21429 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ...Appellant Vs Mr. N. Raghunath,New No.19, Old No.9,Judge Jambulingam Street,Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.PAN No: ...Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,Madras'A'Bench,dated07.03.2017inI.T.A.No.3224/Mds/2016. Appeal filed against the order ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai dated07/06/2017 in ITC NO.3224/MAS/2016 Assessment year 2012-2013against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2) in ITANo.114, 185, 250(CIT(A)-2/2014-2015 dated 19/09/2016 PANNO.ACCPR4059E Assessment year 2010, 2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax non-corporatecircle -2, Chennai PAN NO. Assessement year 2012-2013aginst the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Business Range-1,Chennai PAN NO. Assessment year 2011-2012. For Appellant : Mr.T. Ravikumar Sr. Standing counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar O R D E R (Delivered 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 attheir respective residences and the counsel, staff of theCourt appearing from their respective residences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by theRevenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A' Bench byraising the following substantial questions of law:'1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the large sums ofmoney incurred towards interior decorationwhich give to a enduring benefit to theassessee are revenue expenditure? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal badsince the assessee in its books of accountsmaintained had claimed only 10% depreciationbut however, for the purpose of income-taxhad claimed 100% depreciation on temporarypartition adopting differential treatmentwhich is not correct?3. Whether the reasoning and finding of theTribunal is proper in holding that theexpenditure incurred on temporary woodenstructureareallowableasrevenueexpenditure and not capital?4. Should not the Tribunal apply thedecision of the Apex Court in the case ofCIT Vs Mangayarkarasi Mills reported in 315ITR page 114 especially when hugeexpenditure were incurred by the Assessee onleased premises which has resulted inenduring benefit and therefore capitalnature?' 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated8 August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall notbe filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court incases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.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 Appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. C.M.P.No.21429 of 2017 filed to dispense withthe production of the certified copy of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA NO.3224/Mds/2016, dated07.06.2017 is ordered. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment tothe Respondent/Assessee in the address given in the Appeal. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2 No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. 4. 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 withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. C.M.P.No.21429 of 2017 filed to dispense withthe production of the certified copy of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA NO.3224/Mds/2016, dated07.06.2017 is ordered. 5. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment tothe Respondent/Assessee in the address given in the Appeal. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2 No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. 3.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle-2, Chennai4.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Range-II, ChennaiCopy to:Mr.N.RaghunathNew no.19, Old no.9, Judge Jambulingam Street,Mylapore, Chennai-600004.+1 cc to M/s.T.Ravikumar,Advocate Sr.No. 28053 T.C.A.No.863 of 2017 & CMP.No.21429 of 2017 VSN-II(CO)RV(22/09/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/