Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax - I vs M/S.Lifeccell International ... on 22 February, 2021
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax - I,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Lifeccell International Pvt. Ltd.,
26-Vandalur,
Kelambakkam Main Road,
Keelakottaiyur,
Chennai – 600 048. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
"D" Bench, dated 13.07.2011 in I.TA.No.851/Mds/2011 Assessment
Year 2006-07.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, 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 13.07.2011 made in I.TA.No.851/Mds/2011 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D" Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
3.The appeal was admitted on 06.02.2012 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in setting side the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 on
the ground that the lump sum storage fees paid by the
parents in respect of storing blood, stem, cell and
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
umbilical cord of the new born babies were rightly
spread over in the period of twenty one years by the
assessee ignoring the fact that by making a lump sum
payment the parents were only adopting one of the
two options of payment of fees viz., a one time
payment and annual payment both of which were
taxable in the year receipt?
2)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT was wrong
in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the
Act, since the Assessing Officer had adopted only
one of the two possible views on the issue in
question ignoring the settled law the failure of the
assessing Officer to make the necessary enquiries
and verifications regarding the details furnished by
the assessee itself would make the assessment order
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
revenue?”
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
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
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 these
cases are 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
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.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
Internet : Yes 22.02.2021
va
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D" Bench
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
T.C.A.No.590 of 2011
22.02.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
