It Is Not Known As To How The Appeal Could Not Have Beenfiled For Two Reasons Namely The Issue Is A Recurring Issue Andapart From That, The Tribunal Followed Th v. Nagi Reddy Charities [Reported In 241 Itr431], Which, According To The Revenue Was Distinguishable. In Anyevent, The Order Passed In The Assessee's Own Case, Wh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMAND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.1179 of 2010 The Director of Income Tax,Chennai. APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras'C' Bench, Chennai dated 15.6.2010 in I.T.A.No.429/Mds/2010 forthe assessment year 2004-05 as against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-XII, Chennai, made in ITANo.68/08-09, dated 12.01.2010 as against the order of the DeputyDirector of Income Tax, Exemptions-I, Chennai for the AssessmentYear 2004-05 dated 14.11.2008 For Appellant : Mr. J.Narayanaswamy, SSC For Respondent: No appearance Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')is directed against the order dated 15.6.2010 inI.T.A.No.429/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 2. This appeal was admitted on 11.1.2011 on the followingsubstantial question of law: “Whether,onthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in not considering that the investmentin shares is in violation of the provisionscontemplated under Section 13(1)(d) or not ?” 3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Revenue. Though the respondent has been served,none appears for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. On a careful perusal of the entire material papers andreading of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that theentire matter is wholly factual. The Assessing Officer, videorder dated 14.11.2008, by referring to Section 11(5) of theAct, held that the assessee trust was required to dispose orconvert the assets not conforming to the requirement of Section11(5) of the Act into permissible investment within one yearfrom the end of the financial year, in which, such bonus sharesor other assets are received or 31.3.1992, whichever is laterand that the income over expenditure derived by the assesseeduring the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2004-05is assessable at the maximum marginal rate. This issue arose forthe earlier assessment years also namely 2000-01 and 2001-02. 5. In the assessee's own case, the Tribunal inITA.No.849/Mds/2006 dated 12.10.2007 for the assessment year2002-03 held in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) for theassessment year under consideration followed the said decisionand allowed the assessee's appeal. The Revenue preferred anappeal before the Tribunal, which, by the impugned order,dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.6.2010. Hence, theRevenue is before us. 6. So far as the order passed by the Tribunal for theassessment year 2002-03 is concerned, admittedly, the Revenue didnot prefer any appeal. 7. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue, on instructions, submits that the appeal wasnot preferred on account of low tax effect. 8. It is not known as to how the appeal could not have beenfiled for two reasons namely the issue is a recurring issue andapart from that, the Tribunal followed the decision of this Courtin the case of CIT Vs. Nagi Reddy Charities [reported in 241 ITR431], which, according to the Revenue was distinguishable. In anyevent, the order passed in the assessee's own case, which wasaffirmed by the Tribunal, has become final. 9. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the Tribunaltook note of the factual position and held that it is not for theassessee to sell the shares and law cannot compel one to do theimpossible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. We are of the considered view that decision arrived atby the Tribunal is upon appreciation of the factual position andwe find that there is no substantial question of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. 9. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the Tribunaltook note of the factual position and held that it is not for theassessee to sell the shares and law cannot compel one to do theimpossible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. We are of the considered view that decision arrived atby the Tribunal is upon appreciation of the factual position andwe find that there is no substantial question of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed onthe ground that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. Rs Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals-XII,Chennai.3. The Deputy Director of Income Tax,Exemptions- II, Chennai.+1cc to Mr.J. Narayanaswamy, Advocate, SR.No.71423 TCA.No.1179 of 2010Kak(20/09/2019)