Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Handloom Heritage Limited on 29 October, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.C.A.No.390 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
T.C.A.No.390 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-II,
Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant
-Vs-
M/s.Handloom Heritage Limited,
No.37, Rajamannar Street,
T.Nagar,
Chenai - 600 017.
PAN:AAACH0890A ... Respondent
PRAYER : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,
Chennai dated 18.05.2011 in I.T.A.No.1798/Mds/2010 for the assessment year
2005-06.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.K.Ravi
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question
the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether on the facts and in circumstance of the case
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
deleting the addition on account of unaccounted FDR
in the name of the assessee when the source for the
same is not proved by the assessee?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
deleting the interest portion on the account of
unaccounted FDR in the name of the assessee when the
source of the same is not proved by the assessee?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that there is a contract between the Fixed
Deposit holder and the banker and unless this contract
is proven to be a sham and that those monies came
from the assessee, the addition on account of the
alleged unaccounted fixed deposits is not sustainable?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
deleting the additions when the assessee has operated
bank account in the name of weavers and found the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same to be unaccounted income of the assessee?
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
quashing the proceedings u/s.263?
6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
deleting the addition made on account of un-accounted
stock when the assessee itself has not maintained
proper stock statement / book?
7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the
case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
deleting the addition made on account of unaccounted
stock when the stock statement working as per the
books shows deficit stock?
2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9
of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit
imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial
questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of
time.
3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed
for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at appropriate stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
29.10.2024
(1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
vji
and
29.10.2024
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
