Tca/250/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S.vira Properties (Madras)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal Nos. 250 & 251 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. ...Appellantin both the appeals -vs-...Respondent in both the appeals M/s.Vira Properties(Madras) Pvt.Ltd.New No.158, Old No.,781 Anna SalaiChennai-600 002....Respondent in both the appealsTax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench, dated 23.08.2010in ITA No.895 & 896/Mds/2010, for the Assessment year 2003-04 & 2004-05 respectively against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' bench ,Chennai. Dated 23.08.2010 in ITA.NO.S 895&896 /MADRAS 2010for the Assessment year 2003-04 &2004-2005 PAN AABCV5241Gthe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle III(4), Chennai. Dated 19.03.2010 in ITA.NO.675&676/09 10/A-III madras 2010 for the Assessment year 2004-2005 PANAABCV5241Q Respectively. For Appellant:For Respondent: Mrs.V.Pushpa(in both the appeals)Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan & Ramamani(in both the appeals) [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] These Tax Case Appeals are filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench, dated23.08.2010 in ITA No.895 & 896/Mds/2010, for the Assessmentyear 2003-04 & 2004-05 respectively. 2.Heard Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Counsel for the Revenueand Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned Counsel for the assessee. 3.These Appeals have been admitted on 02.08.2011, onthe following Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat the income from letting outcommercial property was assessable asincome from business on the ground thatthe income from sale of property in thesame building complex had been assessed asbusiness income?” 4.We have perused the orders of Assessment as wellas the Common Order passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax and we find that the tax effect in these appeals arelesser than the threshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, which fixes the monetary limit asRs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannotpursue these Appeals in view of the low tax effect. Hence,the Appeals are dismissed and the Substantial Question ofLaw, framed for consideration, is left open. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of theappeals, if at a later point of time, it is found that thetax effect is above the threshold limit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS ) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarska/mrmToIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench2.The Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan , Advocate SR.No. 85976+1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar , Advocate SR.No. 25606T.C.A.Nos.250 & 251 of 2011A.SK(11/02/2019)