TCA.No.521 of 2014 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.06.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.521 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Prashanth Overseas Supplies House Private Limited, New No.13 (Old No.8), 15th Avenue, Harington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 021. PAN: AAACP1632L ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 27.02.2014 made in I.T.A.No.532/Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel Respondent: Mr.G.Baskar For Mr.N.Muthukumar 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.521 of 2014 Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for Mr.N.Muthukumar, learned counsel for respondent assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 27.02.2014 made in I.T.A.No.532/Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for assessment year 2007-08. 3. appeal was admitted on 01.09.2014 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding order of CIT(A) in deleting addition made by Assessing Authority towards long terms capital gain amounting to Rs.97,65,508/-? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Assessing Officer had made addition under 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.521 of 2014 head capital gain based on dumb document seized during survey, ignoring fact that onus was on assessee to prove that value of land should not be taken as per draft assessment found and seized? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in failing to note that date of agreement of sale was 2.3.2007 and it is not possible that value of land is decreased drastically from Rs.1 Crore to Rs.35 lakhs within short span of fortnight? 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in failing to note that any person of ordinary financial prudence would not accept less than half of agreed price and enter into fresh deal within short span of fortnight? 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeal is 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 this case is less than threshold limit. 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.521 of 2014 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questiond of law framed are left open. In event tax effect is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make mention to this Court to restore appeal to be heard and decided on merits. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 17.06.2020 Internet: Yes To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. abr 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.521 of 2014 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. abr TCA.No.521 of 2014 17.06.2020 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle III, Chennai v. Prashanth Overseas Supplies House Private Limited