The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem v. P.shanmugam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.148 to 151 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem. ..Appellant/Appellant in all appeals Vs. P.Shanmugam .. Respondent/Respondent in T.C.A. Nos.148 & 149/2009 P.Mani .. Respondent in T.C.A. Common Prayer : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 09.12.2005 in ITANos.1442, 1443, 1444 and 1445/Mds/2002 for the assessment year1993-1994 and 1994-1995, against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeal) Salem, made in ITA Nos.08 + 09/2002-03,dated 31.5.2002,for the assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95transferred against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle II, Salem, made in PAN/GIR No.2 DPM003,dated 25.02.2002. C O M M O N J U D G M E N T[Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for therespondents. 2. These appeals had been admitted on 12.03.2009, on thefollowing substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(i).Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in law in holding the reassessment orderpassed by the Assessing Officer to add back theexcessive depreciation that had been computed inthe original assessment is invalid in law ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in law in holding that the proviso toSection 147 provides that an assessment have to becompleted under Section 143(3), then no action canbe taken under Section 147 after the expiry of 4years from the end of the relevant assessment year,even though the assessee failed to make a return orhas failed to disclose fully and truly all materialfacts necessary for assessment in computing theincome ?” 3.Before we proceed to consider the substantial questionsof law raised in these appeals, we have to first take note ofthe fact that the tax effect in the present appeals relevant forthe assessment year 1997-98 is less than the threshold limit. Inthe case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. N.Meenakshisundaram[Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.868 and 869 of 2008; Dated 23.04.2018],this Court had an occasion to consider various circulars issuedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as regards thethreshold limits fixed for filing the appeals by the Revenue orpursue the appeals, which are pending from 2008 onwards. 4.Further, it is relevant to note that by CircularNo.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, monetary limit has further beenincreased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts.It has been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, these appeals could not have been filed. 5.Thus, by applying the above Circular issued by theCBDT, these appeals ought not to have been filed by the Revenueand hence, for that reason, these tax case appeals aredismissed and the substantial questions of law, framed forconsideration, are left open. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI )//True copy// gg Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem. Salem. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem. Salem. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, II, Salem. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Salem. 6. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellante Tribunal, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.No.55931 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.No.55840 T.C.A.Nos.148 to 151 of 2009 GMY(04/10/2018)