Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K.V.Salim on 22 February, 2021
T.C.A.No.1251 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.1251 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
K.V.Salim ... 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 23.10.2008 in I.T(SS).A.No.153/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.1251 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 23.10.2008 made in I.T(SS).A.No.153/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 24.11.2009 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the
finding of CIT (A) that only 2 lakhs paid in cash was
to be added on account of investment made in Galaxy
Apartment even though satisfactory explanation was
not given by the assessee?
2)Whether the Tribunal was right in holding
that the profit made from M/s.Swadshi Petroleum
amounting to Rs.1,98,665/- is not to be added to the
income?
3)Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding
the finding of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of
Rs.28,24,650/- made on account of unexplained
income?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
T.C.A.No.1251 of 2009
4)Whether it was proper for the Tribunal not
adjudicate grounds 3 to 3.3 raised by the department
which is contrary to the judgment of Madras High
Court rendered in the case of South India Surgical
Co. Limited Vs. ACIT reported in 263 ITR 5 which
clearly states that if a ground is raised and the same
has not been adjudicated then it would give raise to
substantial question of law?”
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.1251 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 (4/7)
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
T.C.A.No.1251 of 2009
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
T.C.A.No.1251 of 2009
(4/7)
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
