Tca/710/2018 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Raju Ganesan

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.710 and 711 of 2018andC.M.P.No.14859 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 10,Chennai. .. Appellant/Respondent in both Appeals-vs- Raju Ganesan,Plat No.4A, Pettucola Towers,P.H.Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.PAN: AACPG 8349 N.. Respondent/Appellant in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 22.02.2018 on the file of theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, inI.T.A.Nos.2258/Chny/2017 and 2313/Chny/2017 for the assessmentyear 2009-10.Against the Common order dated 13/07/2017 on the file of thecommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, in ITA.No. 131/CIT(A)-12/2015-16 and against the Common order dated 19/02/2016 on thefile of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporatecircle – 10, Chennai and against thee Common order dated28/12/2011 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Circle – XIII- Chennai-34 for Assessment year 2009-10- inPANAACPG8349N These appeals filed by the Revenue, under Section 260A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 22.02.2018 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.2258/Chny/2017 and 2313/Chny/2017for the assessment year 2009-10. 2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questionsof law for our consideration:- “i. Whether the Tribunal was right andjustified in holding that the assessment reopenedis bad in law though the assessee has failed todisclose the material facts truly and correctlyduring the course of scrutiny assessmentproceedings?ii. Whether the Tribunal was right andjustified in allowing the deduction u/s 54Fthough the assessee has purchased a residentialflat within a period of one year from the date oftransfer of original asset apart from newresidential house at Padur and hence the assesseehas not complied with the proviso (a)(ii) ofSec.54F(1)?” 3.Heard Ms.S.Premalatha, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue; and Ms.E.Malini, learned counsel for therespondent/Revenue, for M/s.Pass Associates.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenuesubmits that the appeals are hit by low tax effect on account ofthe recent circular issued by the Board in Circular No.3/2018,dated 11.07.2018. 5.Recording the said submission, the appeals are dismissedon the ground of low tax effect. 6.Needless to state that if for any reason, it is found thatthe case is not covered by the circular, liberty is granted tothe Revenue to seek for restoration of the appeals to be heardon merits and in such case, any application is filed before theRegistry, the same should be listed before this Court along withthe appeals without insisting for any petition for condonationof delay or for any other matters. Consequently, thesubstantial questions of law are left open. No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. //True Copy// abr Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Non Corporate Circle 10, Chennai. Non Corporate Circle 10, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Room No.221, Wanaparthy Block, 2[nd] Floor, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. Room No.221, Wanaparthy Block, 2[nd] Floor, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – XIII, Chennai – 34. +1cc to Mr.S.Premalatha, Advocate, S.R.No. 55741T.C.A.No.710 and 711 of 2018GN(17/10/2019)