COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KRITHIKA ENTERPRISES

TCA.Nos.413 & 414/2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 24.11.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal Nos.413 & 414 of 2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem ...Appellant in both TCAs Vs 1.Sri Krithika Enterprises, Salem-1 ...Respondent in TCA.No.413 of 2020 2.M.Ponnusamy ...Respondent in TCA.No.414 of 2020 APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders dated 09.2.2007 and 10.1.2007 made respectively in IT(SSA).Nos.234/Mds/2003 and 60/Mds/2005 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the block assessment periods 01.4.1988 to 18.3.1999 and 01.4.1990 to 08.2.2001. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.413 & 414/2020 For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Mrs.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondents: Ms.K.C.Arthi COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Ms.K.C.Arthi, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondents – assessees. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act), are directed against the orders dated 09.2.2007 and 10.1.2007 made respectively in IT(SSA). Nos.234/Mds/2003 and 60/Mds/2005 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) respectively for the block assessment periods 01.4.1988 to 18.3.1999 and 01.4.1990 to 08.2.2001. 3. The Revenue filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.413 of 2020 : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.413 & 414/2020 the penalty levied under Section 158BFA on inflated agricultural income, which was not declared by the assessee while filing return in Form 2D and on deficiency of closing stock that came to light on physical verification during the course of search ? And TCA.No.414 of 2020 : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the direction of the CIT(A) not to treat the disclosed income as NIL as per Section 158BB(1)(ca) read with Clause (a) of Section 158B when the assessee's salary income in this case is above exempted level and no TDS was made on the salary ?” 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 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. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.413 & 414/2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS 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 raised 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. 24.11.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. TCA.Nos.413 & 414 of 2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in