Whether The Tribunal Ought To Have Applied Thejudgment Of The Hon'ble Supreme Court In The Case Ofsuraj Lamp And Industries Ltd v. Whether The Tribunal Ought To Have Applied Thedecision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Shri Balbirsingh Maini In Civil Appeal

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.758 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....AppellantVs Smt.T.Kanniya RaniPAN: AFMPK7216H...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 06.12.2017 made in ITA.No.3357/MDS/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2010-11 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chennai-34 dated30.09.2016 and made in ITA.67/CIT(A)-2/2015-2016 and against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 29.04.2013 andmade in C.NO.47(4) 264/CIT IV/2013-2014. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learnedcounsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated06.12.2017 made in ITA.No.3357/MDS/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for theassessment year 2010-11. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe amended provisions of Section 50C(1) of the IncomeTax Act which was applicable with effect from01.04.2017 are applicable to the impugned transactionwhich took place in previous year relevant to theassessment year 2010-11 as per registered sale deed? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe transaction has been taken place as per Section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act read with Section 53A of theTransfer of Property Act especially when no evidencehad been placed by the assessee with regard to thesale agreement or any contract entered indicating thetransfer of property existed and a registered power ofattorney was sufficient evidence for holding deemingtransfer of the property as per Section 53A of theTransfer of Property Act? 3.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSuraj Lamp and Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryanaand another reported in 340 ITR page 1 wherein it hadbeen held any contract of sale which was not aregistered sale deed would fall short of requirementsof the relevant provisions of law of Transfer ofProperty Act and could not confer any title and thatthe transfer of property by way of sale could be onlythrough a sale deed and in the absence of deed ofconveyance (duly stamped and registered as required bylaw) no right, title or interest in an immovableproperty could be transferred especially when in thepresent case no sale agreement had been enteredbetween the land owners and the power of attorneyholders? 4.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied thedecision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri BalbirSingh Maini in Civil APpeal No.15619 of 2017 (arisingout SLP(Civil)NO.35248 of 2015 to the facts of thepresent case being similar in nature?" 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. 4.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied thedecision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri BalbirSingh Maini in Civil APpeal No.15619 of 2017 (arisingout SLP(Civil)NO.35248 of 2015 to the facts of thepresent case being similar in nature?" 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 tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrarcseTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai Iv 3rd floor New Block Aayekar Bhavan121 Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai-6000343.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-2121 M.G.Road Nungambakkam Chennai-34+1 cc to Mr.S.Sridhar Advocate sr74497+1 cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar Advocate sr73678TCA.No.758 of 2018mp(co)aa22/10/2019