THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI MEGHRAJ JAIN SHIKAR

TCA.No.230 of 2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.8.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.230 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

...Appellant Vs Shri Meghraj Jain Shikar ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 27.12.2016 made in ITA.No.656/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent: M/s.Pass Associates Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and M/s.Pass Associates, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2020 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 27.12.2016 made in ITA.No.656/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions made under Section 68 amounting to Rs.84,50,519/- as unexplained deposits made by the Assessing Officer ? ii. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the Assessing Officer had, in the assessment order, clearly brought out that the opening balance in the capital account as on 01.4.2011 was only Rs.326,56,557/- and the closing balance was Rs.332,50,920/- and the figure estimated by the Tribunal does not match with the opening balances in the capital account, which shows that it had wrongly arrived at facts ? And iii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse as the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it especially when there was no evidence produced in the form of ledger extracts, confirmation letters, date of remittance of the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2020 amount to the parties and the name and address of the parties etc., from whom cash was realized especially when no business was carried on by the assessee in the past years as evident from the returns filed ? ” 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 dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 25.8.2020 RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.No.230 of 2020 25.8.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in