Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs R.Anandakumar on 8 January, 2021
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 08.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Trichy. ... Appellant
Vs.
R.Anandakumar ... 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 18.07.2011 in ITA.No.372/mds/2011, Assessment
Year 2007-08.
For Appellant : Ms.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel
for Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan
for Mr.G.Baskar
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.)
We have heard Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant – Revenue and Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan for the respondent –
Assessee.
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 18.07.2011 made in ITA.No.372/mds/2011 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''B'' Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
3.The appeal was admitted on 16.04.2014 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the
guideline of the land as on 01.04.1981 cannot be
adopted by the assessing officer as the cost of
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
acquisition of the land while computing that capital
gains on the sale of land by the assessee on the
ground that guideline value has not undergone at
any change for four decades?
2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in adopting the cost
of acquisition of the land as adopted by the assesses
valuer, even though no evidences were produced to
support the value arrived by the valuer?
3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the
cost acquisition of the land cannot be arrived by the
assessing officer without referring the valuation of
the department valuation cell?
4)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering
the ground raised by revenue with respect to
valuation of building as on 01.04.1981 for the
propose computing the capital gains?”
4.The learned 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
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
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 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 appeal to be
heard and decided on merits. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
08.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
va
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''B'' Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
va
T.C.A.No.43 of 2014
08.01.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
