Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 v. Shri.c.sampath Kumarpan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.80 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai....Appellant Vs Shri.C.Sampath KumarPAN: 24704-S...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 20.04.2017 made in ITA.No.54/MDS/2005 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe Block assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 and part of 1996-97 against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 11(4), Chennai, dated 31.03.2005 under sections158 BD of the Income Tax Act 1961 made in PAN No.24704-S. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar 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.A.S.Sriraman, learned counselfor Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated20.04.2017 made in ITA.No.54/MDS/2005 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the Blockassessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 and part of1996-97. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1.Whether the ITAT is justified in law indeleting the addition made by the assessing officertowards undisclosed salary income and difference ofcredit balance in his account in the books ofcompany M/s.Domore Tools and Accessories Pvt. Ltd.,on the ground that these additions do not emanatefrom Search material, by ignoring the fact thatthese additions are attributable to evidence foundduring the course of search operation and theassessee had not filed return of income for any ofthe assessment years involved in the block period? 2.Whether the ITAT is justified in law indeleting the addition made by the assessing officertowards undisclosed income on account of repaymentof loan to Shri.Nadathur Varadhan, on the groundthat the addition on this account, if any, can bemade only in the hands of Shri.A.N.Dyaneswaran, byignoring the fact that the same Hon'ble ITAT hasdeleted the addition made on this account, onsubstantialbasis,inthecaseofShri.A.N.Dyaneswaran? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in law indeleting the addition made by the assessing officertowards undisclosed income on account of commissionreceived by the assessee of Rs.13,56,340/- on theground there is no material to indicate the same,whereas, as per para 6 of the assessment order, theaddition was based on analysis of the seizeddocuments? 4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is justified in law in deleting theaddition made by the assessing officer towardsundisclosed income of Rs.30 lakhs of transactionentered into by Shri.Palaniappan Ramasamy with theassessee, by ignoring the evidence of stampedreceipts found with the assessee at the time ofsearch? 5.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is justified in law in deleting theaddition made by the assessing officer towardsundisclosed income on account of money held in theform of foreign currency at the time of search, by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to provethe source of such money with documentary evidenceand also by ignoring the presumptive provisions ofSection 132(4A) of I.T.Act?" 4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is justified in law in deleting theaddition made by the assessing officer towardsundisclosed income of Rs.30 lakhs of transactionentered into by Shri.Palaniappan Ramasamy with theassessee, by ignoring the evidence of stampedreceipts found with the assessee at the time ofsearch? 5.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is justified in law in deleting theaddition made by the assessing officer towardsundisclosed income on account of money held in theform of foreign currency at the time of search, by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to provethe source of such money with documentary evidenceand also by ignoring the presumptive provisions ofSection 132(4A) of I.T.Act?" 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. cse Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 11(4), Chennai - 34.