The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Hemendra Devendra Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.08.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Tax Case Appeal No.559 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai... AppellantVs. Hemendra Devendra ShahNo.14, First Avenue,Harrington Road, Chetpet,Chennai 600 031... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.03.2017 in I.T.A.No.3261/MDS/2016 and against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Chennai 34 and made in I.T.A.No.21/2015-16/A.Y.2012-13/CIT(A)-4 dated 19.10.2016 and PAN No.AMZPS6457Nand against the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate ward 3(4)Chennai 34 and made in /NCW 3(4)/2014-15 dated12.03.2015 and PAN No. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No Appearance J U D G M E N T (Delivered by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.03.2017 inITA No.3261/MDS/2016, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was right indeleting the long term capital gain amounting toRs.1,96,56,014/- on the ground that they wereexempt being agricultural land, especially when https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the State Registration Department has classifiedthe said lands as residential area - clause 1and therefore could not agricultural lands? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct ingranting relief to the Assessee by treating theland as agricultural land especially when theletter of the concerned Tahsildar dated January,2015 clearly indicated that no agriculturalactivities were carried out in the said landduring that period and that in the Chitta andAdangal extract furnished indicated only thename in the Patta and that in the columns,nature of crop and area of crop were left blankas on 20.04.2012? (iii)Whether the Tribunal was right inoverlooking the fact that the assessee hasfailed to furnish during the assessmentproceedings before the Assessing Officer anydocumentary evidence to substantiate the factcasuarinas trees were planted in the earlieryears, which could fetch income during therelevant year especially when no agriculturalactivities were carried on by the Assessee fromthe date of possession in 1985 onwards?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel for the Appellant brought to our notice theCircular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxesvide Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, wherein, it isstipulated that Appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court, in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is less than themonetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal is dismissed asnot pressed, preserving the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar (aeb) To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Chennai 34. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate ward 3(4), Chennai. Non-Corporate ward 3(4), Chennai. +1 cc Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.No.58431 T.C.A.No.559 of 2018RR(CO)CSL/06.12.2018