THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. CONCERNIA VIRGINIA CHEN

TCA.No.113 of 2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.113 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Concernia Virginia Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-3. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 02.9.2015 made in ITA.No.816/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC Respondent: served and no appearance Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue.

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.113 of 2016 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 02.9.2015 made in ITA.No. 816/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal was admitted on 16.2.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that when an advance received for commercial transaction is reclassified as unsecured loan in the books of account, then such amount received cannot be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? and ii. Whether the reasoning of the Tribunal is proper while deleting the additions made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 4. 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. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.113 of 2016 threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. 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.

(T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.113 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.113 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in