The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. Shri A.v. Gopalakrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2020 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Tax Case (Appeal) No.782 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. ...Appellant -vs- Shri A.V. Gopalakrishnan ...Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C"Bench, Chennai, dated 08.02.2018 in ITA No.3163/Chny/2016against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4Chennai-34 dated 30.08.2016 and made in ITA No.58/2015-16/A.Y-2007-08/CIT(A)-4 and against the order of the Income TaxOfficer, Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai-34 dated 31.03.2015for the assessment year 2007-2008 For Petitioner : Mr. T. Ravi KumarFor Respondent: No appearance. ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,) 1. The Respondent/assessee, for the Assessment Year 2007-08,by an order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2015, wasimposed a tax of Rs.86,83,173/- and it was followed by aPenalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, [in short “IT Act”] being initiatedseparately. The Assessee, aggrieved by the said order ofAssessment, filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-4. The CIT(Appeals), Chennai, vide anorder dated 30.08.2016 passed under Section 250(6) of theby an order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2015, wasimposed a tax of Rs.86,83,173/- and it was followed by aPenalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, [in short “IT Act”] being initiatedseparately. The Assessee, aggrieved by the said order ofAssessment, filed an appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-4. The CIT(Appeals), Chennai, vide anorder dated 30.08.2016 passed under Section 250(6) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. IT Act, dismissed the appeal. The Assessee made furtherchallenge by filing an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. The ITAT, Chennai,vide impugned order dated 08.02.2018, had allowed theappeal and challenging the same, the Revenue has filed thepresent appeal. 2. This Appeal was entertained on 11.06.2019 by framing thefollowing substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was right in holding thatdeduction claimed U/s. 54F is to be granted for allthe Nine flats even though the condition prescribedby the statute has not been fulfilled by theAssessee since possession has been taken after 3years from the date of transfer of the originalassets?" 3. Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, the learned standing counselappearing for the Revenue would submit that in the light of thecircular issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 268Aof the IT Act, a decision has been taken not to prosecute theappeal, which is having the tax impact of less than one croreand admittedly a circular in this regard has also been issuedand in the light of the fact that the tax assessed by the incometax officer is less than one crore, prays for appropriateorders. 4. In the light of the said circular, this Tax Case Appealdeserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed. However, thequestion of law is left open and it is to be decided in anappropriate proceedings. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// bga Copy to 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai-34 Non Corporate Ward 16(3), Chennai-34 +1cc to Mr.T. Ravi Kumar, Advocate SR.No.18477 Tax Case (Appeal) No.782 of 2018 MP(CO)GMY(28/07/2020)