Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0218-21]

Citation 2015-LL-0218-21
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/02/2015
Assessment Year 1998-99
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • tax effect
Bot Summary: Even though these appeals were admitted on the question of law, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at Rs.4,00,000/- by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instruction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read with Instruction No.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. The preliminary objection of the assessee and the tax liability is as under: Preliminary objection on maintainability of Department's Tax Case Appeals: Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000 read with Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 fixed the monetary limit to prefer a Tax Case Appeal only if the tax effect exceeds Rs.4 Lakhs for each case taken singly, i.e. In group cases, each case should individually satisfy the monetary limits and therefore cumulative tax effect cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the assessee also pleaded that the case of the assessee does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 27.3.2000, where irrespective of revenue effect the matter should be contested by the Department. Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of revenue effect: Where Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. Where the Board s order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is less than Rs.4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall within the exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. Considering the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain these appeals.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.2.2015 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.(A).Nos.1482 to 1484 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .. Appellant Vs. Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd. No.40, North Usman Road Chennai 600 017. .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.1.2007 made in I.T.A.Nos.336 to 338/Mds/2006 for assessment years 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Revenue has filed these appeals challenging order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 12.1.2007 made in (2) I.T.A.Nos.336 to 338/Mds/2006 for assessment years 1998-1999 to 2000-2001, and same were admitted on following question of law: Whether Tribunal was right in holding that compensation received for delay in completion of project is capital receipt? 2. Even though these appeals were admitted on question of law, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals in view of preliminary objection made by learned counsel for respondent that monetary limit to prefer appeal is pegged at Rs.4,00,000/- by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Instruction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read with Instruction No.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. 3. preliminary objection of assessee and tax liability is as under: Preliminary objection on maintainability of Department's Tax Case Appeals: Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000 read with Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 fixed monetary limit to prefer Tax Case Appeal only if tax effect exceeds Rs.4 Lakhs for each case taken singly, i.e. In group cases, each case should individually satisfy monetary limits and therefore cumulative tax effect cannot be taken into consideration. he Assessee submits that Assessee does not fall within any of exceptions provided in instruction mandating department to prefer appeal. total tax effect excluding interest is as follows: (3) A.Y. Disputed Amount in Working Tax Effect in Issue Rs. Rs. 1998-1999 Compensation 1,83,600 @35% 64,260 Capital 1999-2000 3,12,120 @ 35% 1,09,242 Receipt 2000-2001 2,38,680 @35% 83,538 SC @ 8,354 91,892 10% 4. learned counsel for assessee also pleaded that case of assessee does not fall within exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes on 27.3.2000, where irrespective of revenue effect matter should be contested by Department. relevant portion of said instruction reads as under: 3. Adverse judgments relating to following should be contested irrespective of revenue effect: (i) Where Revenue audit objection in case has been accepted by Department. (ii) Where Board s order, notification, instruction or circular is subject-matter of adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against assessee. (iv) Where constitutional validity of provisions of Act are under challenge. 5. learned Standing Counsel for Revenue is not disputing fact that tax effect in present case is less than Rs.4 Lakhs and that assessee's case does not fall within exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated 27.3.2000. (4) 6. Considering circulars issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes and tax effect involved in case on hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain these appeals. Accordingly, without going into merits of question of law formulated, these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. (R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 18.2.2015 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sasi To: 1. Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "B", Chennai. 2. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V Chennai. 4. Income Tax Officer Company Ward V(1), Chennai. (5) R.SUDHAKAR,J. and R.KARUPPIAH,J. (sasi) T.C.(A).Nos.1482 to 1484 of 2007 18.2.2015 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Prasanthi Entertainers (P) Ltd
Report Error