Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai v. A.govindasamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Commissioner of Income Tax,Central II, Chennai... Appellantvs.A.Govindasamy.. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C"Bench, Chennai dated 06.11.2009 passed in I.T. (S.S.) A.Nos.80/Mds/2008. Appeal against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli, dated6.8.2008 in ITA.No.244/CIT(A)/06-07 for the Assessment year2002-2003 against the order passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli, dated 6.8.2008 in ITA.No.245/CIT(A/06-07 for the assessment year 1996-97 to 2002-03 against theorder passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CentralCircle-II, Tiruchirapalli dated 29/3/2004 in AFMPG 7396E (GIRNO.G.702) for the assessment year 2002-2003 against the orderpassed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II,Tiruchirapalli,dated26.03.2004inAFMPG7396E(GIR.NO.G.702) for the Assessment year 1996-97 to 2002-3003.For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumarand Ms.K.G.Usha Rani For Respondent :Mr.R.Sivaraman The Revenue has filed this appeal by formulating thefollowing substantial questions of law in respect of the blockassessment year 1996-1997 to 2002-2003 till 06.03.2002: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright deleting the addition of Rs.16,38,351/- made inthe block assessment towards unexplained opening https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ capital by merely relying on the unsubstantiatedstatements of 10 debtors and overlooking the fact thatthe assessee had not filed any returns of income forany assessment year prior to the block period, nor hadany documentary evidence in support of such openingcapital? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin deleting the addition of Rs.14,04,323/- relating tothe assessment year 2002-03 comprised in the blockperiod disregarding the fact the assessee had notmaintained any books of account and wrongly relying onSection 158BB(1)(d) without considering the relevantsection under Section 158b(d)? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin deleting the addition referred to the previousquestion disregarding the fact that the assesseehimself had pleaded before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) that no income was assessable in theregular assessment for the assessment year 2002-03? 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant andthe learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counselappearing for the appellant would submit that the Central BoardDirect Taxes by Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 revised themonetary limits for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunaland the High Court and for filing special leave petitions beforethe Supreme Court. As per the said circular, the monetary limitfor filing appeal before the High Court has been increased toRs.50,00,000/-. 4.In view of the circular issued by the Central BoardDirect Taxes in Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this taxcase appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect,leaving the substantial questions of law open, which have beenframed for consideration. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II,Tiruchirapalli.Tiruchirapalli. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II, Chennai. +1 cc to MR.R. Sivaraman, Advocate Sr.539241 +1 cc to Mr.T.R. Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.52582 T.C.(A).No.515 of 2010 4.In view of the circular issued by the Central BoardDirect Taxes in Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this taxcase appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect,leaving the substantial questions of law open, which have beenframed for consideration. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II,Tiruchirapalli.Tiruchirapalli. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II, Chennai. +1 cc to MR.R. Sivaraman, Advocate Sr.539241 +1 cc to Mr.T.R. Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.52582 T.C.(A).No.515 of 2010 SSI(CO)EU(21/08/2018)