COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.S.P.RAMAMURTHY

TCA.Nos.403 & 404/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.403 & 404 of 2016 & CMP.No.8654 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy ...Appellant Vs Shri.S.P.Ramamurthy ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 24.7.2015 made in IT(SS)A.No.20/Mds/2011 and CO. No.10/Mds/2012 in IT(SS)A.No.20/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the block assessment year 1988-89 to 1998-99. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent: Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.403 & 404/2016 appellant – Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 24.7.2015 made in IT(SS)A.No.20/Mds/2011 and CO.No.10/Mds/2012 in IT(SS)A.No.20/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the block assessment year 1988-89 to 1998-99. 3. The appeals were admitted on 27.6.2016 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the various additions of unexplained investment cannot be sustained (i) on the ground that the investments were reflected in balance sheet prepared and filed in response to notice under Section 158BC even though the assessee had not maintained the books of accounts till the date of search and (ii) on the ground that the additions were made only on the basis of the statement recorded during the search and not material pointing towards the additions were seized during the search without appreciating the facts that the additions were made only on the basis of seized material and without appreciating the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.403 & 404/2016 operation of legal presumption against the assessee under Section 132(4) when the assessee had not rebutted the admissions in the statements ?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel 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 08.8.2019 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 the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.)

30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.403 & 404/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. TCA.Nos.403 & 404 of 2016 & CMP.No.8654 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in