Tca/42/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 v. Geetha Venugopal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.42 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax 7Chennai. Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 19.06.2015 in ITA.636/Mds/2013for Assessment year 2009 - 10 against the order of thecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IX, Chennai - 84 dated28/12/2012 in ITA No.285/11 - 12 for the assessment year 2009-10against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Business ward(1),Tambaram, Chennai dated 30/12/2011 in PAN/GIR NO. AQEPG651H forthe assessment year 2009 - 10. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law inholding that the subject land is an agriculturalland and eligible for exemption under Section 2(14)of the Income Tax Act without verifying as to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whether the compensation for the land acquired waspaid on square feet basis treating it as a non-agricultural land or on per cent basis treating itas an agricultural land? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct inrelying upon the certificate issued by the VillageAdministrative Officer, which cannot supersede theclassification made by Tamil Nadu Government in itsofficial website? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in notfollowing the Supreme Court judgment in the case ofSmt.Sarifabibi (204 ITR 631) where it was held thatthe land being mentioned as agricultural land in therevenue records, is not conclusive evidence to proveits character? And 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in relyingupon the population of Kollapakkam Village to holdthat the land is an agricultural land and failed tofollow the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in thecase of G.M.Omer Khan (196 ITR 269) wherein it washeld that the population of the entire municipalityhas to be considered and not that of a particulararea / village for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)of the Income Tax Act?” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated thatappeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before theHigh Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KST To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) - IX, (Appeals) - IX, Chennai - 34. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Bussiness ward (1), Tambaram. T.C.(A) No.42 of 2016 VBA(CO)KKV/08/07/2020