COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7, vs. GEETHA VENUGOPAL,

Judgment in TCA No.42 of 2016 dated 12.03.2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.42 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. Geetha Venugopal ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 19.06.2015 in ITA.636/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Renganathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Assisted by Mr.V.Rajesh, Jr.Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, by raising the following substantial questions of law: Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA No.42 of 2016 dated 12.03.2020 "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the subject land is an agricultural land and eligible for exemption under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act without verifying as to whether the compensation for the land acquired was paid on square feet basis treating it as a non-agricultural land or on per cent basis treating it as an agricultural land? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying upon the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, which cannot supersede the classification made by Tamil Nadu Government in its official website? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in not following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Smt.Sarifabibi (204 ITR 631) where it was held that the land being mentioned as agricultural land in the revenue records, is not conclusive evidence to prove its character? And 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying upon the population of Kollapakkam Village to hold that the land is an agricultural land and failed to follow the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of G.M.Omer Khan (196 ITR 269) wherein it was held that the population of the entire municipality has to be considered and not that of a particular area / village for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act?” Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA No.42 of 2016 dated 12.03.2020 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals 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). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. (V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 12.03.2020 KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai. Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in TCA No.42 of 2016 dated 12.03.2020 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J. KST T.C.(A) No.42 of 2016 12.03.2020 Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in