Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Redington India Ltd on 3 December, 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/4
Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/4
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/4
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/4
