The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.baghmar Finance Ltd., New

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal Nos.960 & 961 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai...Appellant Vs M/s.Baghmar Finance Ltd., New No.4, old No.49, Laxmi NivasErulappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 23.8.2013 made respectively inITA.Nos.1244 and 1257/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively against the order dated17.0.2013 made in ITA No.160 & 186/12-13 on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai for theAssessment Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, and against theAssessment Order dated 07.12.2011 made in PAN/GIR No.AAACB3597Qon the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle 1(2), Chennai-34, for the Assessment year 2009-10, andagainst the Assessment Order dated 20.12.2010 made in PAN/GIRNo. on the file of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle -1(2), Chennai for the Assessment year2008-2009. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.SriramanCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.A.S. Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act) are directedagainst the common order dated 23.8.2013 made respectively inITA.Nos.1244 and 1257/Mds/ 2013 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for short, the Tribunal)for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. The appeals were admitted on 24.11.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee companywas the owner of the asset and entitled todepreciationofRs.77,71,276/-andRs.15,81,179 respectively ?ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the transfer ofwindmill to the assessee, by which, theassessee claimed ownership was a genuinetransaction ? Andiii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the cost of onewindmill had to be allocated on pro-ratabasis out of total cost of Rs.81 Croresalleged incurred by M/s.Surana IndustriesLtd.? ” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law raised are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// RS To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)VI,Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle 1(2)Chennai-34. TCA.Nos.960 & 961 of 2015RLD(CO)RMP(03/09/2020)