Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. R.chandrakala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case Appeal No.1481 of 2010 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai ..Appellant/ RespondentVs. ..Respondent/Appellant R.Chandrakala ..Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench dated 10.12.2009 made in ITANo.691/Mds/09. And against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-VI Chennai dated:04/03/2009 made inITA.No.88/08-09 against the Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1)Chennai-34, dated:10/12/2018 made in PAN.GIR.No.AADPR5260Qassessment year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar (Delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench dated 10.12.2009 madein ITA No.691/Mds/09, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 20%deduction had to be given on the cost of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ construction arrived by the assessing officer basedon the DVO report who adopted the CPWD rates? and(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theconstruction was done during February 2000 toSeptember 2000 and thereby setting aside thedirection of the CIT(A) to the assessing officer toassess the cost of construction proportionately forthe relevant assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07during which the construction took place as per thevaluation report as found by the CIT(A) as well asthe assessee's submissions?" 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kplTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI Chennai. 3. Income Tax Officer Ward I(1) Chennai 600 034 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.84128 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.83570 TCA No.1481 of 2010.VGII(CO)GSP(09/01/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/