Appellant v. Sri.s.imtiaz Ahamed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.03.2019 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal No. 765 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax - IV Chennai. Appellant/ Appellant Vs. Sri.S.Imtiaz Ahamed Respondent/ Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, dated 08.01.2010 made inI.T.A No.1114/Mds./2009 against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (appeals) VI, Chennai. 34. dated24.03.2009 made in ITA NO.188/07 and against the orderpassed by the Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Circle I,Chennai. 600 034 dated 17/12/2007 made in 21756-1/AACPA7322H for the Assessment Year 1998-1999. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Renganathan, Standing Counsel for Mr. Arun Kurian Joseph For Respondent : Mr. Philip George ----- J U D G M E N T(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, dated08.01.2010, made in I.T.A.No.1114/Mds/2009 by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleting the value of gold broughtinto India by the assessee at Rs.45,23,555/-accepting the assessee's explanation that thesource for investment was out the giftsreceived from his mother-in-law, who were inthe U.K. and who in turn had allegedly taken aloan from one Shri Sheik Dawood of Dubai in1997 even though there was no evidence to provethe source of such loan and the genuineness ofthe transaction? 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in confirming thedeletion or addition mentioned in the precedingground without appreciating that the assesseewas shifting his stand by first claiming thestatus of non-resident and then explaining thesource to be gift from his mother-in law andfather-in-law and again claiming that, they inturn had taken loan from Shri Dawood of Dubaiwhen it was proved that they did not have thefinancial capacity to make the gifts and thattoo without proving the creditworthiness ofShri Sheik Dawood? 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, thelearned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxesvide Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the taxeffect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to beless than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, theappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed,keeping open the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax -IV,Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)-VI,121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. 600 034. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Circle I, Chennai.600 034 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar,Advocate SR.No. 22363TCA No.765 of 2010A.SK(03/04/2019)