The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Ms.prabha Dixit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:12.12.2017Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM andThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Tax Case Appeal No.641 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai....AppellantVsMs.Prabha Dixit...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 09.9.2016 made in MP.No.61/Mds/2016 inITA.No.2207/Mds/ 2015 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'A'Bench,Chennaidated28/12/2015,madeinITA.No.2207/mds/2015. against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2 , Chennai 34 dated 7.9.2015, made in ITA.no.44/CIT(A)-2/2013-14. against the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Circle II, Chennai 34 dated 25/3/13 made inAAFPD3966K/143(3) r/w sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 09.9.2016 in a miscellaneouspetition in MP.No.61/ Mds/2016 in ITA.No.2207/Mds/2015 for theassessment year 2006-07, raising the following substantialquestions of law : "i. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee waseligible to claim deduction under Section54EC even though the long term specifiedassets were in the joint names of theassessee and her mother ?https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by dismissing the appeal of theDepartment without going into the merits ofthe case especially when there had beenrevenue audit objection which has beenaccepted by the Department and thereforewould fall within the exceptions provided inPara 8(c) of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015? and iii. Whether the reasoning and findingof the Tribunal is proper by allowing theclaim of the assessee especially when theprovisions contained in Sub-Section (2) ofSection 54EC would make the said Sectionotiose since the investment was made in thenames of the assessee and her mother ?" 2. Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue. 3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal in a miscellaneous petition filedby the Revenue for recalling the order passed by the Tribunaldated 28.12.2015. The order dated 28.12.2015 is a common orderin a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal, onhearing the Departmental representative, found that the taxeffect is less than Rs.10 lakhs and referred to the circular ofthe Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015. Further, theTribunal was of the opinion that the Revenue cannot proceedfurther in those appeals and ultimately dismissed the appeals.Upon dismissal, the Revenue filed a miscellaneous petitionbefore the Tribunal requesting for recalling the orderdismissing the appeal stating that the audit objections raisedby the Accountant General (Audit) have been accepted by theDepartment and re-assessment order was issued. 4. The Tribunal took up for consideration the factual issueand found that there was no material produced before theTribunal to establish that the audit objections were accepted bythe Department. If such a factual finding has been rendered bythe Tribunal, the same cannot be disturbed in exercise of powersunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the decisionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Janardhana Rao Vs.Jt. CIT [reported in (2005) 273 ITR 50. 4. The Tribunal took up for consideration the factual issueand found that there was no material produced before theTribunal to establish that the audit objections were accepted bythe Department. If such a factual finding has been rendered bythe Tribunal, the same cannot be disturbed in exercise of powersunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide the decisionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Janardhana Rao Vs.Jt. CIT [reported in (2005) 273 ITR 50. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend thatthe decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT(International Taxation) Vs. Mrs.Jennifer Bhide [reported in(2012) 349 ITR 80], referred to by the Tribunal, is notapplicable to the facts of this case and the decision of thePunjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jain Narain Vs. ITO[reported in (2008) 306 ITR 335] would be applicable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. However, we find that this Court, in the case of CIT Vs.V.Natarajan [reported in (2006) 287 ITR 271], while consideringa similar issue with regard to exemption under Section 54 of thesaid Act, held in favour of the assessee and the appeal filed bythe Revenue was dismissed. On a reading of the impugned orderpassed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not goneinto the aspects regarding the applicability of the decision ofthe Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs.Jennifer Bhide, butonly noted the findings rendered by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals). Thus, we are satisfied that on facts, the Revenuewas not able to establish before the Tribunal that the auditobjections were accepted by the Department. 7. Hence, we find that no question of law, much less, asubstantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal. 8. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai-343. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle II, Chennai 34+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advvoate Sr.NO.88961/17 TCA.No.641 of 2017 GP(CO)sm:9.1.2018