Iii) Whether The Tribunal Ought To Haveapplied The Judgment Of The Hon'ble Supreme Court Inthe Case Of Suraj Lamp And Industries Ltd v. Iv) Whether The Tribunal Ought To Have Appliedthe Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Shribalbir Singh Maini In Civil Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.8.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Tax Case Appeal No.438 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai...AppellantVs.Amudha Anandh..Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 06.12.2017 in ITANo.3358/Mds/2016, against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai dated 30.09.2016 in ITANo.68/CIT(A)-2-2015-16 against the order of the Income TaxOfficer, Non Corporate Ward-1(1), R.No.305 III Floor, WanaparthyBlock, Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai-34 dated 31.03.2015 made in PANNo.AABPA2471Q and against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Chennai-IV, Chennai-34, dated 29.4.2013 made inC.No.47(3)/264/CIT IV/2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel (Delivered by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated06.12.2017 in ITA No.3358/Mds/2017, by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law:"(i) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the amended provisions of Section 50C(1) of theIncome Tax Act which was applicable with effect from01.4.2017 are applicable to the impugned transactionwhich took place in previous year relevant to theassessment year 2010-11 as per registered sale deed? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the transaction has been taken place as perSection 2(47)(v) of the I.T Act read with Section53A of the Transfer of Property Act especially whenno evidence had been placed by the Assessee withregard to the sale agreement or any contract enteredindicating the transfer of property existed and aregistered power of attorney was sufficient evidencefor holding deeming transfer of the property as perSection 53A of the Transfer of Property Act? (iii) Whether the Tribunal ought to haveapplied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Ltd. vs. Stateof Haryana and another reported in 340 ITR page 1wherein it had been held any contract of sale whichwas not a registered sale deed would fall short ofrequirements of the relevant provisions of law ofTransfer of Property Act and could not confer anytitle and that the transfer of property by way ofsale could be only through a sale deed and in theabsence of deed of conveyance (duly stamped andregistered as required by law) no right, title orinterest in an immovable property could betransferred especially when in the present case nosale agreement had been entered between the landowners and the power of attorney holders? and (iv) Whether the Tribunal ought to have appliedthe decision of the Apex Court in the case of ShriBalbir Singh Maini in Civil Appeal No.15619 of 2017(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.35248 of 2018) to thefacts of the present case being similar in nature?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellanthas been authorised, by letter dated 26.7.2018, to withdraw theappeals in view of revised monetary limit. In the instant case,the tax effect is less than the monetary limit imposed, namelyRs.26.46 Lakhs and therefore, the learned counsel sought towithdraw this appeal. 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellanthas been authorised, by letter dated 26.7.2018, to withdraw theappeals in view of revised monetary limit. In the instant case,the tax effect is less than the monetary limit imposed, namelyRs.26.46 Lakhs and therefore, the learned counsel sought towithdraw this appeal. 4. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn, preserving the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarkplTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals-2), Chennai.3.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-1(1) R.No.305 III Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, Chennai-34.4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-IV, Chennai-34.TCA No.438 of 2018. br[co]srg 5/10/2018