The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichy v. Dr.p.sivamani

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichy....Appellant/AppellantVs Dr.P.Sivamani...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 09.04.2014 made in ITA.No.164/MDS/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10, against the order dated 06/09/2013made in ITA.NO.375/2011-12/CIT(A)/TRY on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Tiruchirapalli 620 001against the order dated 30/12/2011 vide PAN/GIR.NO. /1(2)/KRR on the file of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Karur. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant/revenue and Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, 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 dated09.04.2014 made in ITA.No.164/MDS/2014 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessmentyear 2009-10. 1/3 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right indeleting the addition made by the assessing officerwith respect to difference in cost of constructionof hospital cum residential building as arrived bythe DVO and the assessee without considering theretrospective effect of section 142A? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe reference by the assessing officer to DVO tovalue the cost of construction is not valid on theground that the assessing officer had not rejectedthe books of accounts and assessing officer cannotrefer the valuation of cost of construction to DVOwithout rejecting the books of accounts? 3) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding thatthe assessing officer cannot refer the valuation ofcost of construction to DVO prior to issue of noticeunder section 143(2) and the assessing officer hasacted on the predetermined notion without analysingthe books of accounts and had made addition based onDVO's report?" 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 to 2/3 this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment,Tiruchirapalli.3.The Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(2),Karur.+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate sr.73560TCA.No.55 of 2015nr 12/11/2019 3/3