Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 v. Shri A. Lalichan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM&THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.153 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai ... Appellant/RespondentVs.Shri A. Lalichan ... Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act 1961 against the order dated 12.07.2018 made inI.T.A.No.1880/Chny/2016 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, for the assessment year2010 – 2011, and against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals)-15, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, dated 18-03-2016, made in ITA.No.181/CIT(A)-15/14-15 and against the orderof the Income Tax Officer ward-IV(1), Chennai made in PAN/GIRNo. , dated 26.03.2014. J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM.J) We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned counselappearing for the appellant and Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the orderdated 12.07.2018 made in I.T.A.No.1880/Chny/2016 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, forthe assessment year 2010 - 2011. 3. The Tax case appeal was admitted on 10.12.2019 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the ITAT is correct in law in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Page numbers adopting Rs.9,32,80,000/- as the cost ofacquisition of the land at Kerala by virtue ofthe agreement dated 24.01.2007 when the assesseein its computation of capital gains has claimedRs.4,49,33,080/- only as the total cost of landin the computation statement filed on 02.07.2012during the post survey proceedings? 2. Whether the ITAT is correct in adoptingRs.9,32,80,000/- as the cost of acquisition ofthe land when in fact the assessee has not submitany evidence of payments in excess ofRs.4,49,33,080/- towards the purchase of land andthe initial burden is not discharged by theassessee? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correctin holding that the Revenue has accepted theagreement dated 24.01.2007 as genuine andundisputed document when in fact, the Ld. CIT(A)in his order has questioned the genuineness ofthe documentary proof as it is not placed beforeany notary and no revenue stamp affixed?" 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that theabove appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of thelow tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the saidCircular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appealbefore the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It isfurther submitted that the tax effect in this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above taxcase appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial question of law framed is 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 mentionto this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssd 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai. “B” Bench, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-15, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 4.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-IV(1) Chennai. Ward-IV(1) Chennai. +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.39914 Tax Case Appeal No.153 of 2019BR(CO)CB(03/02/2021)