The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City Circle-Iii(Inv.),Chennai v. Mohanraj Bagmar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2018 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.248 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax,City Circle-III(Inv.),Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- Mohanraj Bagmar ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 30.05.2005 in ITANo.1365/Mds/2002, for the Assessment year 1987-88. For AppellantFor Respondent : : Mr.M.SwaminathanMr.P.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench,dated dated 30.05.2005 in ITA No.1365/Mds/2002, for theAssessment year 1987-88, as against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A' made in ITANo.1251/Mds/98, dated 30.05.2005 as against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) X Chennai made in ITANo.168/2001-02, dated 08.03.2002 as against the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Chennai Circle III Chennai-6 forAssessment year 1987-88 dated 29.03.2001. 2.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mr.P.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel forthe Respondent/assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 27.04.2009, on thefollowing Substantial Questions of Law:"1.Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasrightinholdingthatRs.4,35,000/-representing 13 fixed deposit receipts is notaccessable as unexplained investments in thehands of the assessee even though the assesseehad shifted its stand regarding the source ofthe fixed deposits? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding and had valid material to holdthat Rs.4,35,000/- representing 13 fixeddeposit receipts was not accessable asunexplained investments in the hand of theassessee and in disregarding relevant materiallike the shifting stands adopted by theassessee with respect to the ownership of thedeposits?” 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 2008, 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 Questions of Law, framed forconsideration, are 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(CO) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench. 2. The Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'Á' Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appells X Chennai 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai circle III(INV) Chennai-6 Chennai-6 +1cc to Mr.S.Premalatha, Advocate SR.No.79851 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.No.79358 CNR(CO) T.C.A.No.248 of 2009 GMY(28/12/2018)