Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Smt. J. Elavarasi on 4 August, 2022
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central 2,
No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai. .. Appellant in both appeals
Versus
Smt. J. Elavarasi .. Respondent in both appeals
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D”
Bench, dated 28.10.2016 passed in ITA.No.92/Mds/2006 and
ITA.No.316/Mds/2011.
For Appellant : Mr.Rajesh for
Mr. Karthik Ranganathan
Standing Counsel in both TCAs
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue,
questioning the correctness of the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench, in ITA.No.92/Mds/2006
and ITA.No.316/Mds/2011 for the Block assessment years 01.04.1986 to
24.09.1996 and 2004-05.
2. This Court, by order dated 11.12.2018, admitted the aforesaid Tax
Case Appeals on the following substantial questions of law;
TCA.No.918 of 2018:
' i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in
deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer for
the block period on the ground that no addition towards
undisclosed income can be made without seized
incriminating material to support such addition, when the
assessee never filed return of income?
ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal s correct in law in
holding that the Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
the material found during the course of search operation
for the purpose of computing undisclosed income?
iii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in
holding that addition cannot be made based on valuation
report obtained subsequent to search from the
Departmental valuer ignoring the fact that the assessee
had made investments in construction of bungalow, but
did not produce adequate proof in support of such
investment in the properties?
iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in
holding that the Assessing Officer cannot ask for source
of unexplained cash credit in the name of M/s.Bharani
Beach Resorts (P) Ltd., of Rs.22 lakhs in the assessment
year 1995-96 on the ground that this is a block
assessment by ignoring the fact that the assessee has not
filed any return of income for the assessment year 1995-
96 earlier and as such, is it not imperative to verify the
source of this cash credit?
v. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in
holding that addition cannot be made based on statement
recorded under section 132(4) whereas as per the
provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 132 of the
Income Tax Act, such statement can be used in evidence
in any proceedings under the Income Tax Act?
And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
vi. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in
deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer
towards unproved agricultural income on the ground that
there is no seized material whereas agricultural income
being exempted income, onus lies upon the assessee to
prove the receipt of such income?”
TCA.No.919 of 2018:
“ i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in
law in directing the Assessing Officer to accept the
agricultural income declared by the assessee as
agricultural income without production of any details?
and
ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in
law in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the issue of
agricultural income on the ground that the same was
accepted in earlier assessment years and on the ground
that the Department has not brought anything on record
to show that the assessee not cultivated the land by
ignoring the fact that each assessment year is a different
and distinct year and agricultural income being exempted
income, onus lies upon the assessee to prove the receipt
of income from such source?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the
Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct
Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the
Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not
exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax
effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit.
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax
effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as
withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination
in appropriate cases. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
04.08.2022
msr
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle II (2), Chennai-34.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II
Chennai-34
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench,
Chennai.
T.C.A.Nos. 918 & 919 of 2018
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
