Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri.m.e.shanmugam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN TAX CASE NOS.1785 & 1786 OF 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.. Appellant/AppellantVs. Shri.M.E.Shanmugam.. Respondent/Respondent Tax Cases filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B'Bench, Chennai, dated 20.12.2007 made in IT(SS)A Nos.73/Mds/2006and 15/Mds/2006. Against the order dated 23.01.2006 made inITA.No.183/04-05 on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals)-1, Chennai 600034 and against the order dated30.04.2004 made in AAGP50240L on the file of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -I(3), Chennai-34(TC.No.1785, 1786 of 2008) For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Jr. Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sivaraman COMMON JUDGMENT(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Cases has been filed by the Revenue, calling inquestion the correctness of the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.12.2007 made inIT(SS)A Nos.73/Mds/2006 and 15/Mds/2006, for the BlockAssessment Period from 1.4.1990 to 20.1.2000, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat the income shown in the belated return is notundisclosed income contrary to the provisions of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowingthe claim of interest paid to Sundaram Finance whenthe loan was not borrowed for the purpose ofgenerating taxable income, in view of Section 14A ofthe Act? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat the expenditure on construction of guest houseof M/s.Binny Ltd should be made on the hands of thecompany only, when the amount of Rs.35,36,000/-represents the amount advance for construction fromthe personal funds of the assessee without beingaccounted in M/s.Binny Ltd? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding thatsurcharge is not applicable to block assessments ifthe search took place prior to introduction of theproviso to sec.113 with effect from 1.6.2002? v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee was not liable for taxation on the capitalgains on the T.Nagar Property when VDIS certificatedoes not contain the description of the saidproperty? vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that thecapital gains on the T.Nagar property had alreadybeen shown in the VDIS in the absence of any proofof the same? vii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in applying the ratioof G.K.Senniappan's case to the assessee, when thematerials here were found as a result of search andnot survey?" 2. When the matters are 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). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) 2. When the matters are 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). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarssk.To1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(3) Chennai 600 034. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I(3), Chennai-34+1cc to Mr.A.S.Sivaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.77011T.C.Nos.1785 & 1786 of 2008SR(CO)CS/30/10/2019