THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI SHARAD VASANJI

TCA.No.516 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.516 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs Shri Sharad Vasanji ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 20.2.2015 made in ITA.No.2779/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: M/s.Pass Associates Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and learned counsel appearing for the respondent – 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.516 of 2015 assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 20.2.2015 made in ITA.No.2779/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 20.1.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.43173805/- made towards long term capital gains holding that the lands were agricultural lands ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lands were agricultural lands especially when the first certificate issued by the VAO clearly shows that no crops were grown on the said lands? and 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse by relying on chitta adangal extracts issued by the VAO subsequently without mentioning the period, which was different from the chitta adangal extracts obtained from the VAO by the Department at the assessment stage wherein it had been 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.516 of 2015 clearly stated that no crops were grown in the said lands ?" 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 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 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 16.6.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.516 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS TCA.No.516 of 2015 16.6.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in