Commissioner Of Income Tax Salem. . Appellant In Both Appeals v. Dr.c.t.kiruba

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.1.2015 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Commissioner of Income Tax Salem.. Appellant in both AppealsVs. Dr.C.T.Kiruba.. Respondent in both Appeals PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai, dated 27.10.2006 made in I.T.(SS) A.Nos.87/Mds/2004 and215/Mds/2003 for the block period 1.4.1989 to 27.10.1999. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) No.3Gandhi Road, Salem 636 007 dated 26.6.2003 and 23.3.2004 made inITA.287/2001-2002 and ITA 287/2001-2002 ( Corrigendum ) whichreferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, Company Circle 1, Salem dated 30.10.2001 and made inPAN/GIR.No.K-779. The Revenue has filed these appeals challenging the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated27.10.2006 made in I.T.(SS) A.Nos.87/Mds/2004 and 215/Mds/2003 forthe block period 1.4.1989 to 27.10.1999, and the same were admittedon the following questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(a) Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting theaddition of Rs.2.0 Lakhs made on account ofrenovation of residential building, including woodenwork, which was admitted by the assessee himself asthe cost of investment? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting theaddition of Rs.5,09,700/- made in the construction ofquarters for nurses which was based on thedepartmental valuation report and is valid in view ofthe provisions of Section 142-A of the Income TaxAct? (c) Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting theinterest charged under Section 158BFA(1) as thereturn for the block period had been filed belatedly,especially when the charging of interest ismandatory? (d) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in notconsidering the sworn statement dated 27.10.1999given by the assessee when the search under Section132 of the Act had taken place? 2. Even though these appeals were admitted on the questionsof law, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain theseappeals in view of the preliminary objection made by the learnedcounsel for the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer anappeal is pegged at Rs.4,00,000/- by the Central Board of DirectTaxes vide Instruction No.2 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005 read withInstruction No.5 of 2007, dated 16.7.2007. 3. In the case on hand, the tax liability pertains to theadditions made by the Assessing Officer on account of cost ofrenovation and construction of nurses quarters. The preliminaryobjection of the assessee and the tax liability under the aboveheads is as under:Preliminary objection on maintainability ofDepartment's Tax Case Appeal:Instruction No.2 of 2005 dated 24.10.2005 read withInstruction No.5 of 2007 dated 16.7.2007 fixed themonetary limit to prefer a Tax Case Appeal only ifthe tax effect exceeds Rs.4 Lakhs. The Assesseesubmits that the Assessee does not fall within any ofthe exceptions provided in the instruction mandatingthe department to prefer an appeal. The total taxeffect excluding interest is as follows: 4. The learned counsel for the assessee also pleaded that thecase of the assessee does not fall within the exceptions specifiedin Instruction No.1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxeson 27.3.2000, where irrespective of revenue effect the mattershould be contested by the Department. The relevant portion ofthe said instruction reads as under: “3. Adverse judgments relating to the followingshould be contested irrespective of revenue effect: (i) Where Revenue audit objection in the casehas been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where the Board’s order, notification,instruction or circular is the subject-matterof an adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings arecontemplated against the assessee. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee also pleaded that thecase of the assessee does not fall within the exceptions specifiedin Instruction No.1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxeson 27.3.2000, where irrespective of revenue effect the mattershould be contested by the Department. The relevant portion ofthe said instruction reads as under: “3. Adverse judgments relating to the followingshould be contested irrespective of revenue effect: (i) Where Revenue audit objection in the casehas been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where the Board’s order, notification,instruction or circular is the subject-matterof an adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings arecontemplated against the assessee. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue is notdisputing the fact that the tax effect in the present case is lessthan Rs.4 Lakhs and that the assessee's case does not fall withinthe exceptions specified in Instruction No.1979, dated27.3.2000. 6. Considering the circulars issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes and the tax effect involved in the case on hand, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court is not inclined to entertain these appeals. Accordingly,without going into the merits of the questions of law formulated,these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III) /true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarsasiTo:1. The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench "D", Chennai.2. The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Salem.4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I, Salem.T.C.(A).Nos.1011 and 1012 of 2007ALA (CO)kk 29/1