Tca/277/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sarita Bhandari

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.06.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.277 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle, Chennai....Appellant/Appellant-vs- Sarita Bhandari,20, Erulappan Street,Chennai-600 079.PAN AADPB92 61D...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 30.09.2010 made in I.T.A.No.591/Mds/2010 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai,for the assessment year 2003-04, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Chennai, dated 25/01/10made in ITA No.398/06-07, against the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle-II(2) Chennai, dated 28/12/2006 madein PAN.No. for the Assessment year 2003-2004. For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent:Mr.R.Sivakumar We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue andMr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the respondent – assessee. 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated30.09.2010, made in I.T.A.No.591/Mds/2010 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, for theassessment year 2003-04. 3. The appeal was admitted on 18.08.2014, on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“1. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition of Rs.69,60,700/- made on accountof unexplained receipt from sale of diamond?2. Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theaddition made by Assessing Officer asunexplained receipts pertaining to sale ofdiamond under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct is not proper?” 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(CCC) abr To 2 2.The Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)-II, 46,Mahatma Gandhi Raod, Nungambakka, Chennai-600 034. 46,Mahatma Gandhi Raod, Nungambakka, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai. Central Circle-II(2), Chennai. VG-II(CO)CB(25/09/2020) TCA.No.277 of 2014 3