Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iicoimbatore v. Shri Madan Mohan Chandakno

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.644 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-IICoimbatore...Appellant / Appellant Vs. Shri Madan Mohan ChandakNo.51, Kalaignar NagarKarungalpalayam, Erode-638 003PAN No.AHVPM3762F...Respondent/ Respondent -----Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai dated 19.05.2011 in ITANo.1256/Mds/2009 as against the order dated 11.06.2009 of thecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on ITA.218/08-09,andagainst the order dated 17.12.2008 of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax circle I,Erode for the Assessment Year (2003-2004). -----For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar , Sr.Standing Counsel for Ms.K.G.Usha Rani (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEETKOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Madras, by raisingthe following substantial questions of law:"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that the transaction was to be treated asa transfer within the meaning of Section 47(xiv)and the surplus over the net worth was exemptedfrom income-tax? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that Section 50B read with Section 2(42C)was not applicable to the facts of the case? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that the assets and liability of theproprietary concern cannot become the assets andliability of the company before succession as perSection 47(xiv)? and 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct inholding that the transaction was not a salecovered under Section 50B when the assets andliability was transferred as a going concern whichwas not preceded by succession of business of aproprietary concern by the company as per theconditions imposed u/s.47(xiv)?” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding 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). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appealsfiled by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping openthe substantial questions of law for determination in anappropriate case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arrTo Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-IICoimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax circle I,Erode 4.Shri Madan Mohan ChandakNo.51, Kalaignar NagarKarungalpalayam, Erode-638 003 +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar , Advocate SR.No. 12154 T.C.(A) No.644 of 2011 A.SK(16/03/2020)