Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Chennai v. Kandasamy Sah - 2020-LL-0617-37

Citation	2020-LL-0617-37
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Chennai
Respondent Name	Kandasamy Sah
Court	HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/06/2020
Assessment Year	1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 01/04/2000-14/09/2000
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	undisclosed income • monetary limit • low tax effect • vdis
Bot Summary:	Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.01.2015 made in ITA No.20/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 23.01.2015 made in ITA No.20/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when the assessee had filed VDIS declaration on the above properties and not paid taxes thereon 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when the documents were seized vide Ann/AV/BD/S-1 and Ann/RCD/BD/S-3 dated 15.9.2000 during the course of search action under Section 132 of the IT Act 3. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is 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 appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. In the event the tax effect 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits.

TCA.No.996 of 2015 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.996 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle III, Chennai-600 034. ...Appellant Vs Shri.Kandasamy Sah, No.122/B-1, Ennaikara Street, Kancheepuram-631 501. (PAN: AFSPK7364Q) ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)A No.20/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.T.Vasudevan 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 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 appellant-Revenue and Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for respondent-assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 23.01.2015 made in IT (SS)A No.20/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai for assessment block period 01-04-1990 to 14-09-2000. 3. appeal was admitted on 17.11.2015 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when assessee had filed VDIS declaration on above properties and not paid taxes thereon? 2. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that investments made in immovable properties cannot be considered as undisclosed income for block assessment when documents were seized vide Ann/AV/B&D/S-1 and Ann/RCD/B&D/S-3 dated 15.9.2000 during course of search action under Section 132 of IT Act? 3. Whether Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that assessee is entitled to 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 depreciation on vehicles which is disclosed after search action and also assessee has not maintained books of account regularly? 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. 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions 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 'A' Bench, Chennai. abr 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.996 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. abr TCA.No.996 of 2015 17.06.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Chennai v. Kandasamy Sah

Metadata

Judgment