The Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Incometax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Madras, Dated 24/7/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 13/6/2016 C O R A M The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar Tax Case Appeal No.394 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. ...Appellant /Appellant Vs Smt.M.A.Jananilakshmi10/5 First Link StreetCIT ColonyMylaporeChennai 600 004. ...Respondent/Respondent Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai dated 24/7/2015 in ITANo.1317/Mds/2013 against the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeal)-VI, Chennai, dated 10/1/13 in ITA No.278/11-12 and against the order passed by the Income Tax OfficerBusiness ward I(2), Chennai-600 034 in PA/GI.No.AEDPJ1012L dated19/12/2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. For appellant : Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. (Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) This Appeal has been filed against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Madras, dated 24/7/2015. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in the instantappeal are:- “1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in rejectingthe revenue's appeal by holding that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessee was entitled to the claim ofdeduction made under Section 54 B of theIncome Tax Act especially when the assesseehas not deposited the capital gains incapital gains deposit scheme before the duedate for filing of the return? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunalis wrong and perverse while allowing theentire sale proceeds under Section 54 Bespecially when the assessee has depositedonly Rs.25 lakhs into the capital gainsaccounts scheme before due date for filingof the return? 3. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in allowing deduction in respect ofthe entire sale proceeds of Rs.68.65 lakhswhen the assessee has only invested Rs.55lakhs under Section 54 B of the Income TaxAct?4. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in ignoringthe fact that Maraimalai Nagar MunicipalityconstitutesUrbanconglomeration/areawithin the meaning of Sec.2 (14) (iii) (a)or (b) being within three Kms of theMunicipality and therefore, would notconstitute an agricultural lands and noexemption is permissible?” 3. Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned Senior Standing Counselfor Income Tax fairly submitted that the monetary limit, in theinstant appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. He also submitted thatthe instant appeal was filed on 15[th] December 2015, on the basisof the instructions of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Tax CaseAppeal falls within the ambit of Circular No.21/2015[F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (PT.)], dated 10/12/2015 4. Based on the above said Board Circular, instructionshave been given that the appeal should be filed only above thespecified monetary limit, as specified in paragraph 3 of theCircular. Added further, Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned counselfor the appellant submitted that the impugned order does notfall under any one of the clauses mentioned in paragraph No.8 ofthe Circular. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the light of the above circular and placing on recordthe submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, whiledismissing the T.C.A.No.394 of 2016, as withdrawn, substantialquestions of law raised are left open. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) VI, Chennai.4.The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward I(2), Chennai-34.+1cc to Mr.T.RaviKumar, Advocate Sr.31653Tax Case Appeal No.394 of 2016ca[co]srg 29/06/2016