The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.rapicon Equipment P. Ltd., Chennai-34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.8.2019 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.441 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...AppellantVsM/s.Rapicon Equipment P. Ltd.,Chennai-34....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 10.7.2012 made in ITA.No.970/Mds/2011 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2006-07 against the Order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai -34, dated14.03.11 passed in ITA No.437/2008-09 against the Order dated22.12.08 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle- V(3), Chennai -34 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC &Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.G.Baskar Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counseland Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant – Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counselappearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated10.7.2012 made in ITA.No. 970/Mds/2011 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessmentyear 2006-07. 3. The appeal was admitted on 03.1.2013 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether the Tribunal is right in notconsidering the value determined by thestamp valuation authorities for the purposeof payment of stamp duty in respect of thetransfer of land or the value determined bythe District Valuation Officer in pursuanceof the reference made by the AssessingOfficer to him as full value ofconsideration but determining the price saidto be realized by the assessee as full valueof consideration ? andii. Whether, under the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in accepting the price referred to bythe assessee as full value of consideration,ignoring the provisions of Section 50C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961?” 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. //True Copy// To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai. Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle- V(3), Chennai. Company Circle- V(3), Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai -34, Chennai -34, +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.71100 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, SR.No.71653 TCA.No.441 of 2012 Kak(23/10/2019)