THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI T.CHITTY BABU

T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 and CMP.No.9312 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant

Versus Shri T.Chitty Babu ... Respondent

Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1340/Mds/2012. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar

Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1340/Mds/2012, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, by raising the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.566,12,050/- and Rs.119,19,650/- made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 is proper? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the difference between the funds received during the year and actual investments made in land on behalf of the company should be brought to tax as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e)?" 2.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 Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 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. 3.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the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 23.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle - I (1), Chennai - 34. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai. T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.443 of 2016 23.08.2022 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis