Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Preethi Neuro Hospital on 10 January, 2022
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Coimbatore. ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Preethi Neuro Hospital,
(Shri Preethi Hospital),
15, Pachaiappa Street,
Opposite to G.H.1st Street,
Erode - 638 009. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D”
Bench, dated 11.01.2008 in I.T(SS)A.No.10/Mds/2005.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai, in I.T.(SS)A.No.10/Mds/2005, relating to the
assessment years 1996-97 to 2002-03.
2.By order dated 30.11.2009, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, since the assessee
in its return of income for the assessment year 2002-02 filed
before the date of search as declared the cost of construction, it
can be only assessed in regular assessment and not under the
block assessment, when the fact regarding undisclosed
investment towards the cost of construction came to the light
only subsequent to search?
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gifts and
credits claimed to have received by the partners of the firm and
used for the construction was properly explained, even though
the assessee firm could not satisfy the credit worthiness of the
lenders?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surcharge under
Section 113 is not leviable on the ground that the search in this
case was held prior to 1.6.2002?"
3.When the matter was 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 appeal 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 this appeal is less than the threshold limit.
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said
to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn,
keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an
appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
10.01.2022
av
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “D” Bench.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Coimbatore.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
T.C.A.No.1315 of 2009
10.01.2022
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
