In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.8.2019 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.548 & 549 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax I, Chennai ...Appellant Vs Ms.C.Vinaya Kumari, Hyderabad. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order dated 12.6.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1601 and 1602/H/2008 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.Venkata Narayanan, learned counsel appearing 1/4 TCA.Nos.548 & 549/2010 for respondent assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against common order dated 12.6.2009 made in ITA.Nos.1601 and 1602/H/2008 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench for assessment years 2003- 04 and 2004-05. 3. appeals were admitted on 12.7.2010 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in canceling penalty of Rs.4,48,480/- and Rs.4,89,540/- respectively levied under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 based on incriminating evidence found during search conducted in premises of assessee under Section 132 of Act in form of accounts maintained in tally accounting package ? ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that when assessee was found to have been maintaining two sets of accounts, he could disown one set of accounts without any obligation to explain 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.548 & 549/2010 discrepancies within two sets of accounts and thereby holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Act could be levied for concealment of income ? And iii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not holding that when there is admission on part of assessee of concealed income after being confronted with incriminating material found during search, there was no burden cast on Assessing Officer to prove concealment disregarding several judicial rulings on this issue like Madras High Court's decision in 271 ITR 286? 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeals are not pursued by Revenue on account of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. By said Circular, monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeal before High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that tax effect in respective cases is less than threshold limit. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.548 & 549/2010 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions of law framed are left open. In event tax effect in respective cases is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make mention to this Court to restore appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 19.8.2019 Internet: Yes To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B' Bench. TCA.Nos.548 & 549 of 2010 4/4 Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Chennai v. C. Vinaya Kumari