Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle – Iii,Chennai-600 034 v. Kandasamy Sah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA TAX CASE APPEAL NO.996 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle – III,Chennai-600 034. ...Appellant Vs Kandasamy Sah,No.122/B-1, Ennaikara Street,Kancheepuram-631 501.(PAN: AFS PK 7364 Q) ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)ANo.20/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment block period01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000 against the order dated 30.03.2012made in ITA.No.55/03-04 PAN/GIR NO. on the fileof the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Chennai 34against the order dated 31.12.2002 made in PA NO./GINO.AFSPK7364Q on the file of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle III(1), Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.T.VasudevanJudgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learnedJunior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenueand Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the orderdated 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)A No.20/Mds/2012 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,Chennai for the assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. 3.The appeal was admitted on 17.11.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal was rightin holding that the investments made inimmovablepropertiescannotbeconsidered as undisclosed income forblock assessment when the assessee hadfiled VDIS declaration on the aboveproperties and not paid taxes thereon? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the investments made inimmovablepropertiescannotbeconsidered as undisclosed income forblock assessment when the documentswere seized vide Ann/AV/B&D/S-1 andAnn/RCD/B&D/S-3 dated 15.9.2000 duringthe course of search action underSection 132 of the IT Act? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal isright in holding that the assessee isentitled to depreciation on thevehicles which is disclosed after thesearch action and also the assessee hasnot maintained the books of accountregularly?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenueon account of the low tax effect in terms of CircularNo.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit forfiling or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has beenincreased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that thetax effect in this case is less 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.The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixedin the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue tomake a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to beheard and decided on merits. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III)MDU //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Chennai 34.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III(1), Chennai34TCA.No.996 of 2015RLD(CO)KKV/07/10/2020