PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I vs. SMT.K.R.DEVAKIAMMAL

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.06.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.312 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. .. Appellant/Respondent -vs- Smt.K.R.Devakiammal, No.8, Perumal II Street, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai-600 007. PAN: ACM PD 8274 D .. Respondent/Appellant Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.10.2015 made in I.T.(SS) A.No.80/Mds/2003 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai for the block assessment period 1986-87 to 1996-97. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar ****** http://www.judis.nic.in 2 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.10.2015, in I.T.(SS) A.No.80/Mds/2003 for the block assessment period 1986-87 to 1996-97. 2.The above appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.26.20 lakhs being the value of building made on the basis of Valuation Report, which is an information relatable to evidence found in the course of search as per the provision of Section 158BB(1) of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.21.29 lakhs being the investment made in house property and Rs.5.26 lakhs on the cost of improvement when addition is made on the basis of seized material evidence indicating the investment? (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2.91 lakhs which is made on the basis of sales bill of gold jewellery found during the course of search? http://www.judis.nic.in 3 (iv) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.15 lakhs investment made in a company, when the addition is made on the basis of information available in the connected case of Shri S.Senthamarai? (v) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,70,384/- as the addition is made on the basis of unexplained deposits in bank accounts?” 3.Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue submits that the appeal is not been pursued by the Revenue on account of low tax effect in the light of the Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018. 4.Thus, by applying the circular, this appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial questions of law raised for consideration are left open for decision. The Revenue is at liberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point of time, it is found that the tax effect is above the threshold limit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in the Circular. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 06.06.2019 abr http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.312 of 2019 06.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in