Commissioner of Income Tax vs S. Akbar Shah

D. Murugesan, J.—The above appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal. Chennai Bench ""B"", made in ITA No. 2299/Mad/1995 dt.

19th Oct., 2004. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the charging of interest under s. 215 of the IT

Act, till the date of original assessment under s. 143(1) and not upto the assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that sub-ss. (3) and (6) of s. 215 is not applicable to the

facts of this case is valid ?

A perusal of the order of assessment shows that the tax effect is less than two lakhs, i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,35,369. Instruction No. 2 of 2005 dt.

24th Oct., 2005 [(2005) 198 CTR (St) 41] of the circular of the CBDT as well as Circular No. F 279/126/98-ITJ dt. 27th March, 2000,

prescribe the monetary limit for tiling an appeal by the Revenue to the effect that when the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the said

circular, an appeal is not liable to be canvassed for consideration on merits. In this regard, we may point out that this Court had considered the

effect of the circulars prescribing the monetary limit for filing appeal by the Revenue and rejected the tax cases, in the decisions reported in :

(i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atofina Peroxides India Ltd.

(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited,

(iii) Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. S. Sumathi,

(iv) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kodanadu Tea Estate Company, and

(v) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Arokiam and Another,

As already pointed out, considering the tax effect in the case on hand and the substantial questions of law of general importance are not

established, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.