The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.trichy Distilleries And Chemicals Ltd,Mahalakshmi Mansion P.o

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.799 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. .. Appellant/Appellant -vs- M/s.Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd,Mahalakshmi Mansion P.O.,14, First Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,Adyar, Chennai-600 020. .. Respondent/Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the order dated 30.04.2012, on the file of the IncomeTaxAppellateTribunal,'D'Bench,Chennai,inI.T.A.No.67/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2005-06, andagainst the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 29/10/2010 in ITA.NO.295/07-08/A-III, andagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle-III(2), Chennai. For Appellant:Ms.S.Premalatha, Junior Standing Counsel :for Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent :Mr.T.N.Seetharaman ****** 1/3 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated30.04.2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D'Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.67/Mds/2011 for the assessment year2005-06. 2.The above appeal was admitted, on 04.04.2014, on thefollowing substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of CIT(A) that the disallowance ofRs.2,04,30,685/- made towards administrative feepaid to the State Government is to be allowed?(ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal badespecially when the matter is pending before theSupreme Court and admittedly the liability had notcrystallized during the year and the expenditurepertain to the period 12.04.2000 to 05.05.2004 andthe assessee had failed to claim the same in therespective assessment year?” 3.Heard Ms.S.Premalatha, Junior Standing Counsel, forMr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for theappellant and Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, learned counsel for therespondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Insp.Cell)//True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-III(2), Chennai.2.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate sr.72344+1cc to Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate sr.71826T.C.A.No.799 of 2013kk(co)nr 12/11/2019 3/3