Commissioner Of Income Tax Central I, Chennai v. Dr.k.r.balakrishnan Respondent Agai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.10.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.1376 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Central I, Chennai Appellant Vs. Dr.K.R.Balakrishnan Respondent agai Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.7.2009 made in ITANo.1769/Mds/2008 against the order dated 23.05.2008 and madein ITA.NO.215/07-08 on the file of the Commissioner of IncomeTax Appeals I, chennai and against the order dated 28.12.2007and made PAN/GIR.NO.AAFPB 7926D on the file of the AssistantCommissioner of income tax,Central Circle I(1), chennai. For Appellant : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.SivaramanJ U D G M E N T(Delivered by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, ACJ) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated24.7.2009 made in ITA No.1769/Mds/2008, for the AssessmentYear 2001-2002, by raising the following substantial questionsof law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) was justified in deleting theaddition of Rs.1,15,75,675/- being the loanadvanced to Sri.A.Chandrasekar as evidenced by hisacknowledgment in the stamp paper which was foundand seized from the assessee's premises in thecourse of the search in respect of which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessee could not explain the source ofinvestment? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in not holding that the onus of rebuttingthe presumption under Section 132(4A) read withSection 292C of the Income Tax Act on the assesseeand the assessee had not discharged this onus inany manner? and (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the seized acknowledgment in stamppaper was a 'dump' document overlooking the factthat it was signed by a well identified personwith full address and the date of execution of thedocument given?" 2. When the matter is 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 case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appealfiled by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping openthe substantial questions of law for determination inappropriate cases. No costs. 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/