THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI ERICH NESSEL HAUF

TCA.No.594 of 2017 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 13.7.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.594 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs Shri Erich Nassel Hauf, Chennai-96 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No.280/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No. 280/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 07.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions of Rs.89,02,180/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by merely relying on the affidavit, which is a self serving document and cannot be acted upon especially when no proof or evidence was placed by the assessee to substantiate it ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions amounting to Rs.134,88,000/- on account of investments in house property without even going into particulars like full value of the investments, year of investments, etc., before deciding the issue?” 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 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. 13.7.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.594 of 2017 13.7.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in