The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.liberty Agri Products P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2020 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai...Appellant/Respondent vs. M/s.Liberty Agri Products P Ltd,No.3/284 Muttukadu Road,Neelangarai,Chennai 41....Respondent/Appellant Prayer ::- Appeal filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench, Chennai dated 24.08.2011 inITA No.1610/Mds/2010 for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Company Ward 11(1) Chennai -34 dated 03/09/2010 GIR No./PAN , against the proceedings of the Ministry of Finance IncomeTax Department Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Chennai dated31/08/2010 in F.No.DRP Chennai/Secot/001/2010-11, against the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer IIChennai-34 dated 30.10.2009 and made in F.No.L-201/TPO-II/A-Y2006-2007. For appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residence 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 Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: (i) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thattheadditionaladjustmentofRs.2,61,32,176/- made by the TPO was notsustainable in law?" (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunalis perverse when the DRP had given acategorical finding that there was nodocumentary evidence in the form of writtenarguments or any other 3[rd] party independentevidence to conclude that the said contractof purchase was entered and concluded on06.03.20057 ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition of RS.2.61 crores by adoptingcomparison of uncontrolled price method?" 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counselfor the appellant 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 appeal 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajaji Bhavan Besant Nagar, Madras C Bench, Chennai-90. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward 11(1), Chennai-34.4.The Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai-34.5.The Transfer Pricing Officer-II, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. T.C.A.No.20 of 2014mg[co]srg 04/11/2020