The Income Tax Officer (Osd), Exemption Iii, Chennai v. M/S.shanmuga Arts Sciencetechnology & Research Academy(Sastra), Chennai-34

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN The Income Tax Officer (OSD), Exemption III, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Shanmuga Arts ScienceTechnology & Research Academy(SASTRA), Chennai-34....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 13.10.2010 made in ITA.No.1003/Mds/2010 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07, and against the order dated 19/03/2010 on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Chennai made in ITANo.301/08-09 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, and against the order of the Income Tax Officer (OSD),Exemption III, Chennai dated 30/12/2008 made in U/s 143 (3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. For Appellant :Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC For Respondent:Ms.J.Sree VidhyaJudgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel, appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Ms.J.SreeVidhya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.10.2010 made in ITA. No.1003/Mds/2010 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2006-07. 3. The appeal was admitted on 15.3.2011 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that charging of guaranteecommission at the rate of 1.5% to each ofthe trustees was proper for the assessmentyear 2006-07 ? and ii. Whether the Tribunal was correct innot considering the fact that the trust hadsufficient funds at its disposal as it hadinvested in fixed deposit and had earnedinterest and also had regular source ofincome in the form of fees, based on which,it had obtained concessional rate ofinterest yet paid guarantee commission tothe trustees ?” 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.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 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 VI) //True Copy// To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Officer (OSD), (Exemptions)-III, Chennai.+1cc to M/s.J.Sreevidhya, Advocate Sr.70933+1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate Sr.72220 TCA.No.121 of 2011 gp[co]srg 04/11/2019