COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KANDASAMY SAH

TCA.No.996 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.06.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.996 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – III, Chennai-600 034. ...Appellant Vs Shri.Kandasamy Sah, No.122/B-1, Ennaikara Street, Kancheepuram-631 501. (PAN: AFS PK 7364 Q) ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)A No.20/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.T.Vasudevan Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 the appellant-Revenue and Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for 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 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)A No.20/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. 3. The appeal was admitted on 17.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when the assessee had filed VDIS declaration on the above properties and not paid taxes thereon? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when the documents were seized vide Ann/AV/B&D/S-1 and Ann/RCD/B&D/S-3 dated 15.9.2000 during the course of search action under Section 132 of the IT Act? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 depreciation on the vehicles which is disclosed after the search action and also the assessee has not maintained the books of account regularly?” 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. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 17.06.2020 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai. abr 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. abr TCA.No.996 of 2015 17.06.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in