Tca/70/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shri K.ravi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.70 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. Chennai.... Appellant -vs-Shri K.Ravi... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, dated 17.02.2006, passed in I.T.(SS)A.No.114/Mds/2001 for the block assessment period 01.04.1988to 06.08.1998. against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, City Circle VII, (INV), Chennai 34 dated 19.05.2000and made in PAN/GIR.No 733-R for the Assessment year BlockAssessment Period 01.04.88 to 06.08.1998. For Appellant :M/s.V.PushpaStanding Counsel JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directed againstthe order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,Chennai, dated 17.02.2006, passed in I.T.(SS)A.No.114/Mds/2001for the block assessment period 01.04.1988 to 06.08.1998. 2.Heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue. 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 01.03.2011, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal had enough material todelete the addition to the cost of construction?2.Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the books of accounts were properly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ maintained by the assessee when no such books ofaccounts were found during the search operation? 3.Whether the Tribunal was right inholding as disclosed the recordings in the booksof accounts not found during search? 4.We have perused the Order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.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 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed forconsideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point oftime, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in theCircular. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// cse Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, City Circle VII (INV), Chennai – 34. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, V.Pushpa, Senior counsel, S.R.No.80339 SV(CO)GN(19/12/2018) Tax Case (Appeal) No.70 of 2011