The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.48 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....Appellant/RespondentVsSmt.R.Mallika...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 22.07.2014 made in ITA.No.2046/MDS/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2007-08 and against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals VIII) Chennai 34 dated02.09.2013 in I.T.A. No. 45/2011-2012(A) V and against the orderof the Income Tax Officer, Business Ward IV(2) Chennai 34 dated13.10.2011 in PAN. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SCFor Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant/revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel forMr.S.Sridhar,learnedcounselappearingfortherespondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated22.07.2014 made in ITA.No.2046/MDS/2013 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2007-08. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 03.03.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in granting deduction under Section 54B(1) even though the assessee has not followed theprescribed procedure contemplated under Section54B(2) viz., deposit into the capital gain accountscheme within the time stipulated under Section139(1)? 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, byallowing the 30% of land development andconsequent indexation when the alleged expenditureof land filling which had been incurred was priorto the acquisition of land and therefore notallowable as an expenditure?3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was justified inallowing the 30% of the land development andconsequent indexation especially when the schedulein the sale deed dated 13.02.2007 clearly showsthat no compound wall was in existence andtherefore the finding of the Tribunal was notproper?" 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 08.8.2019 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 this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Income Tax OfficerBusiness Ward IV(2), ChennaiBusiness Ward IV(2), Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals VIII)Chennai 34Chennai 34 +1 CC to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate sr 73561 +1 CC to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate sr 74509 TCA.No.48 of 2015 KK(CO)SP(12/11/2019)