Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2, Vadodara v. Neena J Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 1205 of 2018 ==============================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, VADODARAVersusNEENA J SHAH ============================================================== Appearance :Mr. VARUN K.PATEL, Advocate for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA8[th] October 2018andHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA8[th] October 2018 ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE Mr .JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue objects to the assessee’s claim of deduction under Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the investment was made by the assessee out of the earnest money received and was done before the sell of the capital asset. The facts on record would show that the assessee received certain payments pursuant to an agreement to sale which payments were made before the date of sale and invested such amount in the specified bonds. The next date, the sale deed was executed. We notice that the tax effect is extremely small, well below the minimum prescribed by the CBDT in its latest circular enabling the Department to prefer appeal before the High Court. In the facts of the case and also looking to the smallness of the disputed amount, this Tax Appeal is not entertained, though in terms of CBDT Circular, the same may not be barred in view of the Revenue’s stand that the appeal arises out of the objections raised by the audit party.In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. Prakash [Akil Kureshi, J.][B.N Karia, J.]