Single Judge Bench dismissed the Tax Case Appeal by the Revenue due to low tax effect falling below the threshold limit prescribed under Circular No.3 of 2018. The substantial question of law was left open.
Tax Case Appeal dismissed; substantial question of law left open; Revenue at liberty to seek restoration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.11.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case (Appeal) No.1079 of 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai III. ... Appellant
-vs-
M/s Turbo Energy Ltd.,
67, Chamiers Road,
Chennai-28. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “C” Bench, dated 08.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.978/Mds/2005, for the assessment year 2001-02.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No Appearance
2
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “C” Bench, dated 08.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.978/Mds/2005, for the assessment year 2001-02.
2.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
3.This Appeal has been admitted on 18.08.2008, on the following
substantial question of law:-
“Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appeal by the revenue is infructuous on the ground that the giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), was passed by the assessing Officer?”
4.We have perused the order of assessment as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find that the tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018,
3
dated 11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing 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 pursue this appeal
in view of the low tax effect. Hence, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed and the
substantial question of law, framed for consideration, is left open. No costs.
The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point of
time, it is found that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or to fall under the
exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular.
(T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
02.11.2018
abr
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “C” Bench.
4
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.
(abr)
T.C.(A).No.1079 of 2008
02.11.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding the revenue appeal infructuous as the assessment order was already passed by the Assessing Officer?.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai III
M/s Turbo Energy Ltd.
T.S.Sivagnanam
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
