The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salary Range Vi, Chennai v. Sri S.a.bhimaraja,A1,Whispering Heights

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.471 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Salary Range VI, Chennai. -vs- ...Appellant Sri S.A.Bhimaraja,A1,Whispering Heights,138, St.Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 18. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalChennai 'A' Bench, dated 13.05.2011 in ITA No.1167/Mds/2010, forthe Assessment year 2007-08 as against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) VI, Chennai -34 made inITA No.122/09-10, dated 22.06.2010 as against the order of theJoint Commissioner of Income Tax salary Range IV, Chennai forthe Assessment Year 2007-08, dated 30.12.2009. For Appellant:M/s.M.V.Pushpa For Respondent :Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan JUDGMENT [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 13.05.2011 in ITANo. 1167/Mds/2010, for the Assessment year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Counsel for the appellantand Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 28.10.2011, on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law:"(i)Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right on deletingthe addition of Rs.5 Lakhs when the assesseefailed to prove through evidences? (ii)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the order of theTribunal is perverse since the order iscontrary to the material facts?” 4.We have perused the order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law, framed forconsideration, are left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at a later pointof time, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit. mrm/abr Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'A' Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) VI, Chennai - 34. Chennai - 34. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Range IV, Chennai - 34. Salary Range IV, Chennai - 34. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.83442 T.C.A.No.471 OF 2011 cnr(co)kak(09/01/2018)