Appellant/Appellant Inall The v. M/S.r.s.trustold

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.2.2020 CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.39 to 42 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Central III, 121, M.G.RoadChennai 600 034. Appellant/Appellant inall the Petitioners Vs. M/s.R.S.TrustOld No.24, New No.38, ABM Avenue, Chennai 600 028.PAN: AAATR 7639G Respondent/Respondentsin all the petitioners Tax Cases filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 6.6.2012 made in ITA Nos.1929 to1932/Mds/2011, against the order dated 23/8/2011 made in ITANos.332/10-11, 333/10-11, 334/10-11, 335/10-11 on the file ofCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai-34 and theAssessment orders dated 31/12/2010 for the PAN No.AAATR7639Gon the file of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle III(3) Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar J U D G M E N T(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)These Tax Cases have been filed by the Revenue, callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 6.6.2012made in ITA Nos.1929 to 1932/Mds/2011, for the AssessmentYears 2003-2004 to 2006-2007, by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law: 1 "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wascorrect in holding that no reference could be madeto the Valuation Officer without rejecting theassessee's books of accounts?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wascorrect in holding that the case of the appellantis covered by the decision of Sargam Cinema (328ITR 513) though Section 142A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 was inserted by Finance Act, 2004, withretrospective effect from 15th November, 1972,empowering the assessing officer to seek valuationreport from the valuation officer for the purposeof making an assessment or reassessment?(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in deleting the addition under Section 69 byfollowing the decision of K.K.Seshaiyer Vs. CIT(246 ITR 351) without noting that the case isdistinguishable on facts?" 2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to beless than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, theAppeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn,keeping open the substantial questions of law fordetermination in appropriate cases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk.To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Central III, 121, M.G.Road Chennai 600 034. Central III, 121, M.G.Road Chennai 600 034. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Chennai-34. Chennai-34. 4.The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III(3), Chennai. Central Circle III(3), Chennai. Copy to:The Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.12151+1cc to Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.12027T.C.(A) Nos.39 to 42 of 2013VGI(CO)CB(26/05/2020)