The Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. C. Chinnusamy (HUF) - 2019-LL-0819-98

Citation	2019-LL-0819-98
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem
Respondent Name	C. Chinnusamy (HUF)
Court	HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	19/08/2019
Assessment Year	1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 01/04/1999-19/01/2000
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	low tax effect • monetary limit • surcharge
Bot Summary:	Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 10.8.2007 made in IT(SS)A.No. 123/Mds/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the block assessment 01.4.1989 to 19.1.2000. The appeal was admitted on 12.7.2010 on the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that surcharge cannot be levied for the block assessment in respect of searches conducted prior to 01.6.2002 ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not considering the fact that the Proviso to Section 113 was admittedly clarificatory in nature and was applicable to block period, for which, surcharge is levied under the relevant Finance Act of the year, in which, search was initiated And iii. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.

In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.8.2019 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.550 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem Appellant Vs Mr.C.Chinnusamy (HUF), Tiruchengode. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 10.8.2007 made in IT(SS)A.No.123/Mds/2004 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for block assessment 01.4.1989 to 19.1.2000. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: No appearance Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue. 1/4 TCA.No.550 of 2010 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 10.8.2007 made in IT(SS)A.No.123/Mds/2004 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for block assessment 01.4.1989 to 19.1.2000. 3. appeal was admitted on 12.7.2010 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that surcharge cannot be levied for block assessment in respect of searches conducted prior to 01.6.2002 ? ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not considering fact that Proviso to Section 113 was admittedly clarificatory in nature and was applicable to block period, for which, surcharge is levied under relevant Finance Act of year, in which, search was initiated ? And iii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not following judgment of Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Suresh N.Gupta [reported in 297 ITR 322]? 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.550 of 2010 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeal is not pursued by Revenue on account of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. By said Circular, monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeal before High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that tax effect in this case is less than threshold limit. 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions of law framed are left open. In event tax effect is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make mention to this Court to restore appeal to be heard and decided on merits. 19.8.2019 Internet: Yes To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.550 of 2010 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.550 of 2010 19.8.2019 4/4 Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. C. Chinnusamy (HUF)

Metadata

Judgment