The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. P.vikram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.01.2019 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.313 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ... Appellant -vs- P.Vikram ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.01.2011 in ITANo.1973/Mds/10 for the assessment year 2006-07, against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) VI(I/C),Chennai-34 dated 16.08.2010 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 inI.T.A.No.160/08-09 against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-34, dated 30.12.2008 for theAssessment Year 2006-07. For Appellant: Mrs.V.PushpaStanding Counsel J U D G M E N T Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the appellant/Revenue is directedagainst the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.01.2011 in ITANo.1973/Mds/10 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant.3. This Appeal has been admitted on the followingSubstantial Question of Law:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in adopting theindex at 100 relating to the Financial Year 1981-82, since the year in which the said propertywas acquired by the Grand father was 61-62, forthe purpose of computing the LTCG and not thethe case, the Tribunal was right in adopting theindex at 100 relating to the Financial Year 1981-82, since the year in which the said propertywas acquired by the Grand father was 61-62, forthe purpose of computing the LTCG and not the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ index value of 426 relating to the Financial Year2001-02, during the year in which the grandfather had died and assessee had inherited theproperty by Will and had actually become theowner as per Section 48(iii)?" 4. We have perused the order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5. Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed forconsideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at a later pointof time, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// (svki) Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' BenchMadras.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-VI),Chennai 34.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II,Chennai 34. +1 cc to M/s.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.59 PPA(CO)CSL/19.02.2019