Commissioner of Income-tax I, Madurai v. S. Ponnaiyan
[Citation -2019-LL-0819-131]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0819-131 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax I, Madurai |
| Respondent Name | S. Ponnaiyan |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 19/08/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2001-02 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | unexplained investment • statutory presumption • low tax effect • monetary limit • fixed deposit • purchase of property • seized sale agreement • search proceedings • value of property • unexplained jewellery • seized document |
| Bot Summary: | These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 23.4.2010 made respectively in ITA.Nos. 1120 of 2010 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax even though the passbooks were found in the assessee's own residential premises and this will lead to the statutory presumption in terms of Section 132(4A) that control over such books and the assets mentioned therein in the forms of fixed deposits, was with the assessee himself TCA.No. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement recorded from Smt.Poncy and they have failed to disclose the jewellery in the wealth tax return iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of 205.08 grams of gold estimated to be unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act even though the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to note that the assessee has failed to disclose the jewellery in the wealth tax return And iv. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. |