Tax, Ward Iv(1), Chennai-34 v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward IV(1), Chennai-34....AppellantVsSmt.Nirmala Chandrasekaran...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 14.12.2007 made in ITA.No.654/Mds/2006 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2002-03 as against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Chennai-34 dated15.12.2005 as against the proceedings of the Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Circle III(4), Chennai-34 dated31.03.2003 for P.A.No./G.I.NO.34701-N. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SCFor Respondent: Mr.G.Baskar 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 Mr.G.Baskar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated14.12.2007 made in ITA. No.654/Mds/2006 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2002-03. 1/2 3. The appeal was admitted on 11.1.2011 on the followingsubstantial question of law :“Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that long term capitalgains that arose as result of pro-closure ofinvestment in specified schemes notified bythe Government should be taxed only @ 10%and not 20% as assessed by the AssessingOfficer ?” 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 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 mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) To //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-I, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Tax, Central Circle-III(4),Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate sr.70463TCA.No.1176 of 2010ppa(co)nr 01/11/2019 2/2