THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. BLOW PACKAGING INDIA PVT LTD

TCA.Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.55-D, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 098. PAN: AAACB3145L ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 26.09.2017 made in ITA.Nos.2288/Mds/2016 and 336/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: No appearance COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 26.09.2017 made in ITA.Nos.2288 and 336/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 3.The appeals were admitted on 26.06.2018 on the following substantial questions of law : “i.Whether the Tribunal erred in law substantially in holding that the respondent assessee had not lost its character of small scale undertaking as per Section 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and was, hence, eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the total investment in plant and machinery in its two units had exceeded the threshold limit set by the relevant statutory provisions? ii.Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that if an assessee satisfied the conditions of being a small scale industrial undertaking in the first year, it was not necessary for the assessee to satisfy the conditions in each subsequent year of claim?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Blow Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.55-D, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 098. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.321 and 322 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in