The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – Ii, Chennai v. M.k.sareena

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 22.02.2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central – II, Chennai. ...Appellant/AppellantVs.M.K.Sareena... Respondent/Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "B" Bench, Chennai dated 17.07.2008 in I.T(SS).A.No.157/Mds/2007 block period 22.01.2003 and this appealpreferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II,Chennai 34 order dated 17.08.2007 made in Appeal No. CIT(A)/CHE/2/2007-2008 for the assessment year Block assessment for theperiod ending 22.01.2003 and against the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle 11(3) Chennai 34 order dated28.02.2007 made in GIR/PA No/26794S/AAJPS6227Q for theassessment year relating to block period 01.04.1996 to22.01.2003. JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 17.07.2008 made in I.T(SS).A.No.157/Mds/2007 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B"Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the block period22.01.2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 10.11.2009 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “1)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law in deletingtheadditionofRs.58,80,000/-towardsunexplained cash credit under Section 68 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is valid in law?2)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in deleting theadditions of Rs.10,85,200/- made on account ofunexplained jewellery even though the assess hasnot proved that the possession of jewellery isdisclosed in the wealth tax returns nor filed anyevidence to show that the purchases were made outof drawings in any of the bank account or accountwith various concerns in which the assessee isinterested?3)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law inrestricting the addition of Rs.16,90,634/- madeon account of unexplained investment in propertyat West Hill, Calicut to Rs.56,734/- is valid?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019dated 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 these cases areless than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. Inthe event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" BenchChennaiChennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)II, Chennai 34.(Appeals)II, Chennai 34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 11(3)Chennai 34.Central Circle 11(3)Chennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate sr 10252.+1 CC to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate sr 10855. T.C.A.No.509 of 2009KJ(CO)SP(19/03/2021)