The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Mr.a.v.chandramohan

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.328 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant/RespondentVsMr.A.V.Chandramohan ...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 23.9.2015 made in ITA.No.2931/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2007-08, and against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-V) Chennai-34, dated 12/8/14in ITA No.72/13-14(A)V, and against the order of the Income TaxOfficer, Salary ward IV(2), Chennai-34, dated 28/03/13 in PANAJAPC4063E. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCJudgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated23.9.2015 made in ITA.No. 2931/Mds/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2007-08. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in holding that the assessee wasentitled to claim deduction under Section54F on all the 8 flats ignoring the languageused in Section 'is a' residential house,which would mean only one house ? andii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by holding that all the 8 flatsdeduction under Section 54F was availablewhen the conditions stipulated thereunderwere not satisfied as the assessee had takenpossession of the constructed house onlyafter the period of 3 years of transfer ofthe original assets ?” 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 raised 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward IV(2), Chennai-34. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) Chennai-34. Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate SR.75266 KK(CO)CB(19/11/2019) TCA.No.328 of 2016