, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.2368/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, NAMAKKAL. VS. M/S. SL (SPL) 151 KARKOODALPATTY PACCS LTD, KARKOODALPATTY, KAMARAJ NAGAR POST, RASIPURAM TK, NAMAKKAL 636 202. [PAN AAAJK 0601K] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AMOL B. KIRTANE, JCIT $%! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE & ' ' () /DATE OF HEARING : 20-09-2018 *+ ' () /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-09-2018 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SALEM. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THE TAX EF FECT IN THIS CASE WAS LESS THAN C20,00,000/- AND HENCE AN APPEA L WOULD NOT LIE ITA NO.2368//2017. :- 2 -: BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY VIRTUE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018, DATED 11.07.2018. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRL Y AGREED THAT THE TAX EFFECT WAS LESS THAN C20,00,000/- AN D BY VIRTUE OF PARA 13 OF THE CIRCULAR MENTIONED (SUPRA) PENDING APPEAL S BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMIT HAD TO BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSE D. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE TAX EFFECT IN T HIS APPEAL WHICH IS LESS THAN C20,00,000/-, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE CANN OT SURVIVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTE MBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED:20TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV / ' $(0 1 2 1 ( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 3( ( ) / CIT(A) 5. 167 $(8 / DR 2. $%! / RESPONDENT 4. & 3( / CIT 6. 79 :' / GF ITA NO.2368//2017. :- 3 -: