IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.240 and 241 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem. ... Appellant in both the Appeals -vs- Namakkal Taluk Lorry Owners Assn., Paramathy Road, Namakkal. ... Respondent in both the Appeals Tax Case (Appeals) filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'D' Chennai, dated 31.01.2006 passed in I.T.A.Nos.742 and 743/Mds/2003 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 007, made in I.T.A.No.104/1999-2000 and I.T.A.No.91/2001-2002 dated 22.01.2003 and 07.02.2003 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I(2), Salem 7, made in PAN/G.I.R.No.AV-6392/DC-1(2), SLM dated 12.01.2000, in the Assessment Year 1997-1998, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I(2), Salem-7 made in PAN GIR NO.AV6392 Dated 27.03.2001 in the Assessment Year 1998-1999. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, (in both the Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskar (in both the Appeals) and M/s.Sree Lakshmi Valli COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals, by the appellant/Revenue, are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'D' Chennai, dated 31.01.2006, passed in I.T.A.Nos.742 and 743/Mds/2003 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. 2.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant; and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3.These appeals have been admitted on 13.04.2009, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the principles of mutuality can be invoked to claim that interest derived by the assessee of the fixed deposits is not exigible to levy of income tax under the Income Tax Act?” 4.We have perused the orders of assessment as well as the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we find that the tax effect in these appeal is lesser than the threshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursue these Appeals in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeals are dismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed for consideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeals if at a later point of time, it is found that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'D' Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 007. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I(2), Salem 7. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I(2), Salem 7. +1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Counsel for IT caes, Sr.No.79387 +1 cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate Sr.No.79357 Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.240 and 241 of 2009 NRJK(CO) CSL/19.12.2018