Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture on 5 February, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 05.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant in both TCAs
Vs.
M/s.Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture
Company Pvt. Ltd.,
167, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondent in both TCAs
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
"B" Bench, dated 18.02.2013 in I.TA.Nos.1211/Mds/2010, 1547/Mds/
2010 Assessment Year 2006-07.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan,
(in both TCAs) Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar
(in both TCAs)
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for
the respondent/assessee.
2.The appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the order
dated 18.02.2013 made in I.TA.Nos.1211/Mds/2010 and 1547/Mds/2010
on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench
(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
3.The appeals were admitted on 23.09.2013 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer
to adopt fair market value (FMV) of the property as
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
on 01.04.1981 at Rs.5,97,062/-?
2)Whether guideline value issued by the State
Government could not be the basis for arriving at the
Fair Market Value of the property especially when
the assessee did not produce any other evidence other
than a valuation report which supports his case?
3)Whether the Tribunal was right in holding
that the average value is to be adopted for arriving at
the FMV of the property as on 01.04.1981 especially
when no such method is provided in the IT Act or its
Rules?
4)Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse
especially after holding that reverse indexation
method adopted by the assessee's valuer was not
absolute free from errors and consequently directing
the FMV of the property to be arrived at by taking
the average value of the claim made by the assessee
and that of the Department?”
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 08.08.2019 issued
by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
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 Appeals
are dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax
effect in this case 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
Index : Yes/No 05.02.2021
Internet : Yes (1/2)
va
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
T.C.A.Nos.514 & 515 of 2013
(1/2)
05.02.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
