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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25.03.2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.571 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle III,Chennai... Appellant v. Shri Muniraj,60, Raghavan Colony,Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “B” Bench, dated 18.08.2011 in ITA.No.1371/Mds/2011 forthe Assessment Year 2007-2008, filed against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai-34 dated26/06/2011 in ITA No.115/09-10 preferred against the Assessmentorder of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central CircleIII(2), Chennai dated 31.12.2009 in PAN No. for theAssessment Year 2007-2008. For Respondent : Mr. N. Devanathan JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N. Devanathanfor the respondent/Assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order dated 18.08.2011 made in ITA.No.1371/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''B'' Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. 3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in coming to the conclusion that theland sold by the assessee is not a capital assetunder section 2(14) and the land is situated morethan 8 kms. from the Tambaram Municipality? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalwas right in coming to the conclusion that theland sold by the assessee is an agriculturalland, when the assessee has not proved orproduced nay evidence of agricultural operationin the said land?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by theRevenue on account of the Low Tax Effect in terms of CircularNo.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 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 the taxeffect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial question of law framed is left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''B'' Bench. Chennai, ''B'' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III(2), Chennai. Central Circle-III(2), Chennai. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Chennai. Central Circle-III, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.19765 T.C.A.No.571 of 2014 gmi[co]srg 3/5/2021