Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. Shri S.c.sekarpan: Aaepc4430C

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Shri S.C.SekarPAN: AAEPC4430C...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 30.09.2016 made in ITA.No.2483/MDS/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2011-12 against the Order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI,Chennai -34, dated26.06.2014 and pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11 against theorder under section 143(3) of the I.T Act dated 21.03.13 passedby the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-VI(3) , Chennai. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant/revenue and Mr.N.Devanathan, learned counselappearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated30.09.2016 made in ITA.No.2483/MDS/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2011-12. 3.This appeal was admitted on 03.04.2018 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether the Tribunal erred in law inallowing deduction under Section 54 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to capitalgains arising from the transfer of a long termcapital asset being buildings or landsappurtenant thereto and being a residentialhouse, the income of which is chargeable underthe head 'Income from House Property', when salewas of a vacant land as per the sale deed, andthe building had been demolished prior to thesale? 2.Whether the order under appeal is vitiatedby the failure of the learned Tribunal toadjudicate the ground raised by the Revenue thatthe assessee had not made the investment withinthe mandatory prescribed period for claimingdeduction of capital gains under Section 54 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961?" 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. cse To Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai -34, 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-VI (3) , Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.74180 TCA.No.140 of 2018 Kak(05/11/2019)