Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 v. Shri R.balachandiran

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.273 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2,No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore....AppellantVs Shri R.BalachandiranPAN: ADAPB8349N...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 27.07.2017 made in ITA.No.2728/MDS/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2013-14, against the order passed by thecommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-18 Chennai dated 09.06.16 inITA NO.90/15-16 for the assessment year 2013-14 passed undersection 250(6) read with section 143(3) of the Act, against theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1 Coimbatore inPAN/GIR No.ADAPB8349N order dated 31.03.2015. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) 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.V.Balaji, 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 dated27.07.2017 made in ITA.No.2728/MDS/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2013-14. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether on merit of the case the ITAT wasright in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s.69 of the ITAct, when the assessee itself has accepted inits statement recorded u/s.132(4) on 14.12.2012that the above advance was made out of hisunaccounted income and substantiated withagreement dated 05.06.2012 also where theassessee is a party? 2.Whether on merit of the case the ITAT wasright in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), without considering the fact that theassessee could not prove that the amount ofRs.1,30,00,000/- credited into the book of theassessee's brother is the same amount which wasgiven by the assessee's brother to the sellersince it was in the form of cash?" 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cseTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commssioner of Income Tax,(Appeals)-18 46, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 46, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.74186 +1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate SR.75786 TCA.No.273 of 2018 RGN(CO)CB(08/11/2019)