THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SMT. RENUKA PHILIP

TCA.Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.03.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5004 of 2021 in T.C.A.No.195 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in both cases Vs Smt.Renuka Philip ...Respondent in both cases COMMON PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1418 & 1419/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) These appeals, filed by the Revenue, are directed against the common order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1418 & 1419/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The appellant-Revenue in T.C.A.No.193 of 2021 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that an existence of the building in the property sold and allowing indexed cost of the building especially when the recitals in the 8 sale deeds executed in relation to the property sold it had been clearly mentioned as a vacant land when the consideration paid was only towards cost of the land and not for any building? and 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding that building existed on the land sold and allowing indexing cost of the building along with improvement by allowing PWD rates when the facts remains no building existed at the time when the sale was effected and what was sold was only vacant land?" 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 3. The appellant-Revenue in T.C.A.No.195 of 2021 has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act especially when the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of claim of deduction made u/s.54 on account of sale of vacant land and had also claimed exemption in respect of investments made in a commercial property fully knowing that no deduction was allowable?" 4. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in these cases are less than the threshold limit. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk 6. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 08.03.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.193 & 195 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.5004 of 2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/