Tca/192/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri M.vishnudas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.192 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai... Appellant-vs- Shri Shri.M.Vishnudas,85/15, Srirangam Avenue,Pantheon Road, Egmore,Chennai-600 008... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 06.08.2013, made in I.T.A.No.581/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai forthe assessment year 2006-07 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax Appeals XI, dated 21.12.2012 and madein ITA.NO.260/2008-2009 and against the order of the Tax OfficerWard XIV(3), chennai dated 31.12.2008 and made in AACPV 3046 Pfor the Assessment Year 2006-2007. This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated06.08.2013, made in I.T.A.No.581/Mds/2013 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2006-07. 2.The above appeal was admitted on 17.04.2014, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the assessee is entitled forexemption of capital gains on the sale of theproperty at Poonamalee High Road and purchase ofproperty at Pantheon Road. (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal was rightin holding that the property sold is a residentialproperty for the purpose of Section 54 even thoughthe said property was exploited as a guest houseand assessee had returned the income from the sameas business income and thereby holding that theassessee is entitled for exemption of capitalgains on the sale of said property.(iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin holding that the assessee had purchased asingle residential unit and clause ii of provisoto Section 54F cannot be applied to deny exemptionof capital gains? 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel forthe appellant. 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.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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(CS III) //True Copy// abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS XI, 121, MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKAM CHENNAI 34. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD XIV(3), CHENNAI 34 T.C.A.No.192 of 2014 A.SK(12/12/2019)