THE COMMIISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI A.RAJALAKSHMI

PDF · subscribers
TCA/465/2018HC Madras28 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the substantial question of law framed for consideration was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, in which event the appeal would be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific issue regarding the allowability of deduction under Section 54 when construction had not commenced within three years was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13. The substantial question of law admitted for consideration by the High Court was whether deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is allowable on investment in a residential house when its construction had not even commenced within three years from the date of transfer of the original asset. The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is allowable on investment made in a residential house, when construction of the residential house is not even started within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the original asset? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below the threshold limit prescribed by the circular for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.465 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.465 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Shri A.Rajalakshmi PAN: AGBPR6558F ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 21.06.2017 made in ITA.No.514/MDS/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.465 of 2018 the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 21.06.2017 made in ITA.No.514/MDS/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 3.The appeal was admitted on 18.07.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is allowable on investment made in a residential house, when construction of the residential house is not even started within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the original asset?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is 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 this case is less than the threshold 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.465 of 2018 limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.465 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.465 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →