The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri.k.a.manshoor, Chennai-87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.8.2019 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN TAX CASE APPEAL NO.820 OF 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...AppellantVsShri.K.A.Manshoor, Chennai-87...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 31.5.2016 made in ITA.No.1412/Mds/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IX, Chennai 34 dated28.03.2013 and made in I.T.A. No. 303/2011-2012 and against theorder of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle I(3) Chennai 34 dated 21.12.2011 for the assessment year2009-2010. Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.R. Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated31.5.2016 made in ITA.No. 1412/Mds/2013 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal was admitted on 07.12.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in respect of receiptof Rs.1.46 Crores by the assessee fromcompany, in which, he has substantialinterest and the company has sufficientaccumulated profit also ? ii. Whether the Tribunal was right andjustified in holding that the provisions ofSection 2(22)(e) are not attracted inrespect of additional rental advances ofRs.45 lakhs received during the year fromthe company, in which, the assessee is thesubstantial shareholder and company is alsohaving sufficient accumulated profits ? And iii. Whether the Tribunal was correct inholding that income from agricultural landheld as business assets by the assessee wasin the nature of agricultural income withoutappreciating the fact that the income earnedis incidental to the business activity ofdealing in real estate business of theassessee?" 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. Assistant Registrar(CCC) To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)IX, 121 Mahathma Gandhi RoadChennai 34(Appeals)IX, 121 Mahathma Gandhi RoadChennai 34 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle I(3)Chennai 34.Company Circle I(3)Chennai 34. +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 75264. TCA.No.820 of 2016 MP(CO)SP(04/12/2019)