Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle Iii, Chennai v. Shri Sugandararaj

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 18.06.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.786 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle III, Chennai. ...Appellant -vs- Shri Sugandararaj,60, Raghavan Colony,Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 18.08.2011 made in ITA.No.1373/Mds/2011on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai for the assessment year 2007-08. Appeal against the order dated 24.06.2011 made in ITANo.262/10-11. On the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II Chennai-600 034 for the assessment year 2007-08. As appeal against the order dated 20.12.2010 made inPAN/GIR No.ALZPS9760M on the file the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax Central Circle-III(2), Chennai-34 for the assessmentyear 2007-08. JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.Devanathan, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated18.08.2011, made in I.T.A.No.1373/Mds/2011 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2007-08. 3. The appeal was admitted on 03.11.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:-“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was right in coming to theconclusion that the land sold by the assessee is nota capital asset u/s 2(14) and the land is situatedmore than 8 kms from the Tambaram Municipality.2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was right in coming to theconclusion that the land sold by the assessee is notan agricultural land when the assessee has notproved or produced any evidence of agriculturaloperation in the said land. And 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was right in restrictingthe disallowance to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- andgave a relief of Rs.3,79,275/- when the assessee hasnot maintained any books of accounts and has notproduced any evidence before the assessing officer.” 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 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai-34 Chennai-34 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III(2), Chennai-34. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Chennai Central Circle-III, Chennai TCA.No.786 of 2014 ln (co)rr ii (21/10/2020)