Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.K.Sahira on 22 February, 2021
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 22.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central – II, Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M.K.Sahira ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
"B" Bench, dated 17.07.2008 in I.T(SS).A.No.157/Mds/2007 block
period 22.01.2003.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,
Senior Standing Counsel
assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,
Junior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel
for the respondent/assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order
dated 17.07.2008 made in I.T(SS).A.No.157/Mds/2007 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the block period 22.01.2003.
3.The appeal was admitted on 10.11.2009 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 law in deleting the addition of
Rs.58,80,000/- towards unexplained cash credit
under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is
valid in law?
2)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in deleting the additions of
Rs.10,85,200/- made on account of unexplained
jewellery even though the assess has not proved that
the possession of jewellery is disclosed in the wealth
tax returns nor filed any evidence to show that the
purchases were made out of drawings in any of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
bank account or account with various concerns in
which the assessee is interested?
3)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in restricting the addition
of Rs.16,90,634/- made on account of unexplained
investment in property at West Hill, Calicut to
Rs.56,734/- is valid?”
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
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 these
cases are less than the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeal
is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial question of law framed is 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
Internet : Yes 22.02.2021
va (7/7)
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
T.C.A.No.509 of 2009
(7/7)
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
