Tca/527/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sri Balasubramania Mills

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.03.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANAND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore. ...Appellant/Appellant M/s.Sri Balasubramania Mills Ltd.,No.3303, Uppilipalayam,Coimbatore - 15 ...Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.02.2013 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai inI.T.A.No.2206/Mds/2012, against the order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore dated 12.09.2012 andmade in Appeal No.382/11-12 for the assessment year 2008-09and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Company Circle I(1), Coimbatore dated 28.12.2011 and madein P.A.No/G.I.R.No.AADCS1887K. (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant /Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the orderdated 12.02.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2206/Mds/2012, relating to theassessment year 2008-2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.On 28.10.2013, the appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law: "(i) Whether under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in applying thefair market value of the property as on 1stApril 1981 at Rs.17,000/- per cent instead ofthe value of Rs.500/- per cent fixed by theAssessing Officer on the basis of enquiry atthe Sub Registrar's Office and guideline valuein the same survey numbers where the assessee'sland is situated?(ii)Whether under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in rejecting thevalue adopted by the Revenue, on the basis ofthe guideline value, which is fixed on thebasis of transactions in the area where theland is situated?" 3.On 09.02.2022, when the matter was taken up forhearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /assessee filed a memo stating that the tax effect in thisappeal is less than the threshold limit and hence, the appealis not maintainable, in the light of CBDT Circular No.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019. For verifying the same, the learned counselfor the appellant / Revenue sought a short accommodation. 4.Accordingly, today, when the matter was called, thelearned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, upon verificationof the records, fairly admitted that the tax effect in thisappeal is less than the threshold limit. 5.In view of the above, the present appeal, wherein, thetax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed,is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantialquestions of law for determination in an appropriate case. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CCC)//True Copy// msr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore. Coimbatore. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench. Madras “B” Bench. 3.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1 Coimbatore. Coimbatore. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Company Circle-I(1), Coimbatore. Company Circle-I(1), Coimbatore. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate SR. No.17160 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR. No.16889 Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2013 SSD (CO)PR (29/03/2022)