Tca/210/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt Sohan Kanwar Nahar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.01.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.210 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central II108, M.G.Road,Chennai - 600 034. .... Appellant -vs- Sohan Kanwar Nahar ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D'Bench, Chennai, dated 01.03.2012 in ITA No.2141/Mds/2010 forthe assessment year 2006-07 against the order dated 20.09.2010passed by the CIT(A)-II, Chennai made in I.T.A.Nos.228/07-08,dated 20.09.2010 against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle II(I), dated 21.12.2007 made in GI/PANNO.AAEPN4718L for the Assessment Year 2006-2007. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel & Ms.K.G.UshaRani For Respondent : Mr.J.Naresh Kumar J U D G M E N T Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 01.03.2012 in ITA No.2141/Mds/2010for the assessment year 2006-07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Nareshkumar, learned counselfor the respondent. 3. This Appeal has been admitted on the followingSubstantial Questions of Law:-" i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that urban land sold by theassessee falls within the meaning of CapitalAsset as per Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IncomeTax Act during the relevant period 2005-06? andii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that lands is agriculturalland, when the said land was developed along withthe adjacent lands into plots which factindicates that the land in question is not anagricultural land during the relevant previousyear?" 4. We have perused the order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and wefind that the tax effect in this appeal is lesser than thethreshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, whichfixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department topursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been ableto point out any distinguishing features, by which the CircularNo.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5. Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law, framed forconsideration, are left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at a later pointof time, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// svki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai.Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income TAx (Appeals-II),Chennai 34.Chennai 34. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 11(i),First Floor, New Building, 46, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.Central Circle 11(i),First Floor, New Building, 46, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. +1 cc to M/s.J.Nareshkumar, Advocate Sr.No.822 +1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate Sr.No.202 CSL/03.04.2019 T.C.A.No.210 of 2012