PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. SHRI.P. AMALANATHAN

T.C.A.No.376 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 03.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.376 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle-III Chennai 600 034

.. Appellant Vs. P.Amalanathan No.19, V Cross Street United India Colony Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024 PAN : AAIPA2933Q .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2317/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.376 of 2021 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2317/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. By order dated 22.07.2021, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right and justified in holding that the assessee has not made any fresh claim of exemption ? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geotze Indi P Limited Vs CIT (SC) [(2006) 284 ITR 323] ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act ? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in allowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54 when the property is not purchased and owned by the assessee at any point of time ? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.376 of 2021 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in allowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54 when the Deed of Mortgage by conditional sale is not an agreement to purchase the property but advancement of loan on interest and in case of default in payment of loan/interest the owner ceases right on it ?” 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] gya 03.08.2022 R. MAHADEVAN, J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.376 of 2021 AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle-III Chennai 600 034 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14 Chennai Tax Case Appeal No.376 of 2021 03.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis