Tax, Chennai v. Shri Sharad Vasanji

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.516 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Tax, Chennai ...AppellantVsShri Sharad Vasanji ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 20.2.2015 made in ITA.No.2779/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2008-09. Appeal against the order dated 28-07-2014 in ITA.No.322/2013-14 on the file of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals)-II, Chennai for the assessment year 2008-2009 and as against the order dated 25-03-2013 in PANo.ASBPS3634H on the file of the Deputy Commssioner of IncomeTax, Business Range-VII, Chennai-34. For the assessment year2008-2009. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SCFor Respondent: M/s.Pass Associates 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 Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and learned counselappearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 20.2.2015 made in ITA.No.2779/Mds/2014on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeal has been admitted on 20.1.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the addition ofRs.43173805/- made towards long term capitalgains holding that the lands wereagricultural lands ?2. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the lands wereagricultural lands especially when the firstcertificate issued by the VAO clearly showsthat no crops were grown on the said lands?and 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunalperverse by relying on chitta adangalextracts issued by the VAO subsequentlywithout mentioning the period, which wasdifferent from the chitta adangal extractsobtained from the VAO by the Department atthe assessment stage wherein it had beenclearly stated that no crops were grown inthe said lands ?" 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 Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Range-VII, Chennai-34. Business Range-VII, Chennai-34. TCA.No.516 of 2015EV (CO)RV (03/09/2020)