Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichy v. R.anandakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 08.01.2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.43 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy. ... AppellantVs. R.Anandakumar... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 18.07.2011 inITA.No.372/mds/2011, Assessment Year 2007-08 against the orderof the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirappallidated 15.12.2010 and made in DTA.No.208/09-10 for theAssessment year 2007-08. against the order of the assistant Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Company Circle-I, Trichy dated 24.12.2009 and madein PAN/GDR.No. for the Assessment Year 2007-08.d For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel for Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan for Mr.G.Baskar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.) We have heard Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel forthe appellant – Revenue and Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan for therespondent – Assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 18.07.2011 made in ITA.No.372/mds/2011on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,''B'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the AssessmentYear 2007-08. 3.The appeal was admitted on 16.04.2014 on the followinghttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the guideline of the landas on 01.04.1981 cannot be adopted by theassessing officer as the cost of acquisition ofthe land while computing that capital gains onthe sale of land by the assessee on the groundthat guideline value has not undergone at anychange for four decades? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in adoptingthe cost of acquisition of the land as adoptedby the assesses valuer, even though noevidences were produced to support the valuearrived by the valuer? 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the cost acquisition of the land cannot bearrived by the assessing officer withoutreferring the valuation of the departmentvaluation cell? 4)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in notconsidering the ground raised by revenue withrespect to valuation of building as on01.04.1981 for the propose computing thecapital gains?” 4.The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitsthat the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on accountof the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By thesaid 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 isless than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above TaxCase Appeal is dismissed on account of the Low Tax Effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In theevent the tax effect in this case is above the threshold limitfixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to the Revenueto make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to beheard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''B'' Bench. 2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)Tiruchirappalli. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax company Circle-I,Tiruchirappalli. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan Advocate SR.NO.1429 +1cc to Mr.M.Muthukumar Advocate SR.NO.1158 T.C.A.No.43 of 2014vaSDR 12/02/2021