The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Chennai v. Sivabala Devi
[Citation -2020-LL-0221-65]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0221-65 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Chennai |
| Respondent Name | Sivabala Devi |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 21/02/2020 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | monetary limit • tax effect |
| Bot Summary: | Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition of Rs.3,55,361/- and Rs.38,538/- as estimatedcommission income when the assessee has not maintained anybooks of accounts and the assessee made the claim onabnormal estimation. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition ofRs.1,16,000/- when the assessee has not produced any books ofaccounts and supporting evidence on sale of thorn trees. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.10,85,000/- on account of estimation of Rental Income from Kodaikanal Guest House when the addition was based on the seized materials4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of unexplained credit of Rs.75,16,875/- when the assessee has not proved the genuineness and credit worthiness and identity of the 42 loan creditors inspite of opportunity given to the assessee. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, 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/-. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. |