THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. INTELLECUTAL REALTY

TCA.No.227 of 2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.08.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.227 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Intellectual Realty Old No.34, new No.58, Veerabadran Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. PAN:AADFI1760N ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1074/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai for the Assessment Year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.No. 1074/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 69A as unexplained income? 2.Whether the finding and reasoning of the Tribunal is proper by deleting the addition made u/s.69A on the ground that the assessee has sold 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 the property to shah enterprises through an agreement of sale which is contrary to the Apex Court decision rendered in the case of Suraj Lamp P Ltd reported in 340 ITR page 1 which has held that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a registered sale deed and in the absence of it no right, title or interest in a immovable property could be transferred? 3.Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of cash payment made for hut vacation expenses especially when the assessee did not produce any evidence for the payments made nor was the cash books produced before the AO in respect of the payment made and that too by contravening Rule 46A f the I.T Rules? 4.Whether the Tribunal was right in not adjudicating the specific grounds raised in Ground 3.2 in respect of improvement charges while making the disallowance u/s.40A(3) in its 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 appeal filed before it? 5. Was it proper for the Tribunal to admit fresh evidence in respect of additions made u/s.69 and in respect of hut vacation expenses without giving opportunity to the AO to examine the same while allowing the claim of the assessee? 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.)

19.08.2020 Internet: Yes /No Index : Yes/No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J sk TCA.No.227 of 2020 19.08.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in