Tca/589/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Vignesh Constructions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.589 and 590 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy... Appellant in both Appeals-vs- M/s.Vignesh Constructions,No.100A, Gandhi Road,Srirangam-620 006... Respondent in both Appeals APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 26.08.2011, made in I.T.A.Nos.496& 497/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09respectively as against the Common Order dated 10.08.2010 in ITANos.231 & 232/2009-10 by the Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals-), Trichy in G.I.No.PA No.AAFFV1091 D for theAssessment Year 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively and as againstthe Order dated 24.12.2009 & 30.12.2009 passed by the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Trichy in PANo./GIR No.AAFFV 1091 D for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and2008-09 respectively. These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated26.08.2011, made in I.T.A.Nos.496 & 497/Mds/2011 on the file ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for theassessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeals were admitted on 02.09.2014, on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin deleting the addition of unexplained investmentu/s 69 on the construction of school building madeon the assessee by holding that the schoolbuilding belonged to the trust and the trust alonewould be entitled to explain the investment, eventhough admittedly the assessee firm herein hadspent the monies towards the construction?(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal havinggiven a finding that trust is only entitled toexplain the investment in the construction of theschool building, the tribunal was right in notgiving direction to assess the unexplainedinvestment in the cost of construction of theschool in the hands of the trust?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counselassisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant – and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel forMr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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 caseappeals are 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 appeals to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs.abr Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals-), Trichy 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - I, Trichy +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.No.73021 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.No.72499 T.C.A.Nos.589 and 590 of 2014 Kak(12/11/2019)