THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S REDINGTON INDIA LTD

Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

... Appellant Vs. M/s. Redington India Ltd. SPL Guindy House 95, Anna Salai, Guindy Chennai – 600 032 PAN :AABCR0347P ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, dated 15.09.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.2219/Mds/2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravi Kumar For Respondent : Mr. R.Venkatanarayanan For Mr. Subburaya Aiyar Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2219/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2006-7, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act especially when the fact remains that the Assessee could not substantiate its claim of expenditure on consultancy charges by providing documentary evidences? 2. Whether the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal is proper by deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer especially when the Assessee has made false claim of depreciation on the so called temporary structures and also by claiming higher rate of depreciation on UPS especially when the assessee was not eligible to claim the same in the first instance? 3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the Assessing Officer had on verification during the assessment proceeding found that the Assessee has made inaccurate particulars and false claim in respect of Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021 depreciation which would have escaped tax especially when the quantum appeal for the assessent year 2006-07 had already been upheld by the Tribunal and decided against the assessee?” 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 3.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 03.12.2021

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No R. MAHADEVAN, J. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021 and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “A” Bench Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 5(1), Chennai – 600 034. T.C.A.No. 537 of 2021

Dated : 03.12.2021 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis