Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. By Order Dated 12.06.2012, This Court Admitted Theaforesaid Tax Case Appeals On The Following Substantialquestions Of Law

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai....Appellant in all TCAs Versus Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the common order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal,“B” Bench, Chennai, dated 22.02.2008 in I.T.A.Nos.25,18, 26, 19 and 27/Mds/2007 against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax Appeals-I, Chennai –600 034 dated 23.10.2006,20.10.2006, 18.10.2006 made in I.T.A.No.30/06-07, 31/06-07,33/06-07 PAN. and for the Assessment year 2004-2005,2003-2004, 1989-99 and against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2)(i/c) chennaiPAN/GIR/No.AGMPP4159R Range Central Circle 1(2), Chennai statusIndividual for the Assessment year 2004-2005, 2003-2004, 1989-99respectively. These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant /Revenue, challenging the common order dated 22.02.2008 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench, inI.TA.Nos. 25, 18, 26, 19 and 27/Mds/2007, relating to theassessment years 1998-99, 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2004-2005 respectively. 2.By order dated 12.06.2012, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantialquestions of law: T.C.A.No. 698 of 2011: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additionof Rs.74 lakhs under the head unexplained investmentunder Section 69 when there is a prima facie findingfrom the materials seized, and the same being affirmedby the sworn statement of the witness-cum-therecipient of money involved?” T.C.A.Nos.699 and 700 of 2011: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition made by the Assessing Officer towards allegedinvestment on unexplained gold jewellery? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition made under the head income from houseproperty when the assessee has not substantiated thelowering of the rent?” T.C.A.Nos.701 and 702 of 2011: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that thecash found in the possession of the assessee is nothis undisclosed income, when the assessee has notsatisfactorily explained the source? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition made under the head income from houseproperty when the assessee has not substantiated thelowering of the rent?” 3.When these matters were taken up for consideration, thelearned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the noticeof this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued bythe Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated thatappeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before theHigh Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted thatthe tax effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit. 4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by thelearned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeals,wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetarylimit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar psa/av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2) (i/c), Chennai - 600 034. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Chennai. +1cc to M/s.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.34441 T.C.A.Nos.698 to 702 of 2011 AD(CO)RGA(12/07/2022)