COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. R.S. SURIYA

T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, No.108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant Vs. Mr.R.S.Suriya 15/17, Krishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 08.04.2015 in I.TA.No.1242/Mds/2013, Assessment Year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman Page 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 08.04.2015 made in I.TA.No.1242/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.The appeal was admitted on 24.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount received as advance as per the agreements entered into by the assessee with different film producers, promising to render professional services were not taxable as income, even Page 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 though the assessee was following cash system of accounting? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.34,30,000/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, without any material evidence and unsatisfactory explanation by the assessee in respect of such investment?” 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 08.08.2019 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in this case is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Page 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 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. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 08.04.2021 (2/2) mkn

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, No.108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn T.C.A.No.968 of 2015 08.04.2021 (2/2) Page 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in