Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri.john Baptist Lasrado

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.158 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....AppellantVs Shri.John Baptist LasradoPAN: AADPJ7078G...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 29.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1045/MDS/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2008-09 against the order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the I.T.Act dated 25.03.2014 passed bythe DCIT, Business Circle -III Chennai against PAN No.AADPJ7078Gof the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Circle III, Chennai-34dated 25.03.2014. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated29.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1045/MDS/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2008-09. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.This appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is erroneous in law and perverse on facts? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, Tribunal is right in directing the assessingofficer to consider the assessee claim fordeduction u/s.54F without appreciating the admittedfact that the assessee was owning more than oneresidential house other than the new asset on thedate of transfer and thereby violating themandatory condition in the proviso (a)(i) to theSection 54F of the Act? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin directing the assessing officer to consider theassessee's claim for deduction u/s.54F withoutappreciating the fact that the construction wascompleted beyond 3 years from the date of transferof assets?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True copy// cse Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-15 Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle III Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.No.74181 TCA.No.158 of 2018 RGN(CO)GMY(01/11/2019)