Tca/789/2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Madhukumaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.789 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. .... Appellant / Appellant -vs- Shri Madhukumaran .... Respondent / Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 12.10.2017 in ITANo.2165/Mds/2016, for the Assessment year 2010-11, against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai,dt:31.03.2016 made in ITA No.235/CIT(A)-2/2013-14 and againstthe order of the Income Tax Officer, Business Ward I(3) Chennai-34, dated 18/03/13 made in PAN/GIR No. For Appellant:Mrs.R.HemalathaSenior Standing Counsel [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directedagainst the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras'B' Bench, dated 12.10.2017 in ITA No.2165/Mds/2016, for theAssessment year 2010-11. 3.The following Substantial Questions of Law have beenframed for consideration: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(i)Whether the Tribunal was correct inholding that the period of holding in the handsof the previous year is to be taken intoconsideration for arriving at the indexed ofcost of acquisition even if the impugnedproperty devolves through gift to thesubsequent owner and eventhough such benefithas not been provided for in Section 48(iii) ofthe I.T.Act, 1961? (ii)is not the finding of the Tribunal badespecially when as per Explanation (iii) toSection 48 clearly states that the indexed costof acquisition would be the year the asset wastransferred for the first year in which theasset was held by the assessee or for the yearbeginning on 01.04.1981 whichever was later?” 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 Questions of Law, framed forconsideration, are 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(CS VIII) //True Copy// mrm Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai 4. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward I(3), Chennai – 34 + 1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.77505 + 1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.77487 BS(CO)SSM(06/12/2018) T.C.A.No.789 of 2018