THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER O vs. M/S.GREATSHINE HOLDINGS PRIV

TCA.No.352 of 2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 01.10.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.352 of 2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai-34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Greatshine Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-8. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 26.2.2018 made in ITA.No.271/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.352 of 2020 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 26.2.2018 made in ITA.No.271/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in relying on the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the penalty by holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in imposing the penalty under Section 271(c) of the Act on the incorrect claim of additional depreciation made by the assessee, which was withdrawn only during the course of scrutiny proceedings and not earlier? and ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the decision of the ITAT, Chennai in the case of DCIT Vs. Ratha Citadines Boulevard Chennai (P) Ltd., in ITA.No.234/Mds/2015 dated 31.7.2015 and ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT Vs. SBI DFHI Ltd., in ITA.No.7433 of 2013 dated 30.6.2016?” 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.352 of 2020 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 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 raised 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. No costs. 01.10.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.352 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.352 of 2020 01.10.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in