The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri Erich Nassel Hauf, Chennai-96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.7.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL NO.594 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant/AppellantVs Shri Erich Nassel Hauf, Chennai-96 ...Respondent/RespondentAPPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No.280/Mds/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2012-13 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, No.121, Mahatma GandhiRoad, Chennai 34 dated 30/11/2015 and made in ITA No.8/2015-16/2012-13/CIT(A)-4 against the order of the Income Tax officer,Non Corporate Ward 16(2) Room No 523C, Vth floor, WanaparthyBuilding Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai34, dated 10.03.2015 and made in PAN No. . For Appellant :Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent :Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.VikramVijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofM/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, learned counsel on record forthe respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated14.7.2016 made in ITA.No. 280/Mds/2016 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessmentyear 2012-13. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 07.12.2017 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the additions ofRs.89,02,180/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by merely relying on the affidavit,which is a self serving document and cannotbe acted upon especially when no proof orevidence was placed by the assessee tosubstantiate it ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the additions amounting toRs.134,88,000/- on account of investments inhouse property without even going intoparticulars like full value of theinvestments, year of investments, etc.,before deciding the issue?” 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 said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD I)MDU //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.3.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 16(2), Room No.523C, Vth Floor Wanapathy Building, Aayakar Bhawan, N0.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 34.4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.TCA.No.594 of 2017PP(CO)KKV/14/08/2020