The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Chennai v. Shri V.ramesh,New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.427 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Chennai... Appellant -vs- Shri V.Ramesh,New No.9, Old No.12, TSD Nagar,1[st] Main Road, Arumbakkam,Chennai-600 106.PAN: .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,againsttheorderdated23.11.2016,madeinI.T.A.No.639/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I)dated 15.12.2015 and made in ITA No.351/14-15 and against theorder of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(3) dated 21.03.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated23.11.2016, made in I.T.A.No.639/Mds/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2011-12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantialquestions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal was rightin holding that the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e)cannot be applied in the hands of the assessee?(ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal badsince the funds were transferred from ChennaiMicro Print P Ltd in which the assessee is a shareholder owning 33.33% of the shares and in TalliboyStationary P Ltd holds 25% of the shares? and(iii) Whether the reasoning and finding of theTribunal is proper by holding that the assessee isnot the share holders in Chennai Micro Print P Ltdwhereas it is a fact that the assessee has 50%share holding disclosed as per the return ofincome filed in the case of Chennai Micro Print PLtd?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar,learned representing counsel for Mr.G.Baskar, learned counselfor the respondent. 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 saidcircular, 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(CS-VIII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissionr of Income Tax (Appeals -I), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circular I (3), Chennai. Company Circular I (3), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.74360 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.No.75980 T.C.A.No.427 of 2017MP(CO)GMY(04/11/2019)