PRINCIPAL COMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SANGUPATHI PROPERTIES L

TCA.No.49 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.49 of 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Sangupathi Properties Pvt Ltd, No.1379, "Golden Villa", 1st Block, 6th Street, 18th Main Road, Vallalar Kudiyeruppu, Anna Nagar West, Chennai - 40. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 08.03.2019 made in ITA.No.1650/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for the assessment year 2014-15. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.M.Vivekanandan 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.49 of 2020 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 08.03.2019 made in ITA.No.1650/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appeal was admitted on 30.01.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability of Rs.2,76,40,000/- was correct inspite of the fact that the assessee has not proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the persons purported to have given land advances, even during the appellate proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT being the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.49 of 2020 highest fact finding authority, was correct in law, in confirming the learned CIT(A)'s order, without adjudicating the grounds 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 raised by the Department?" 3. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.M.Vivekanandan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing 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 08.08.2019 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 limit. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.49 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 29.03.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034. TCA.No.49 of 2020 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/