The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Erich Nassel Hauf
[Citation -2020-LL-0713-5]

Citation 2020-LL-0713-5
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Erich Nassel Hauf
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/07/2020
Assessment Year 2012-13
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • low tax effect
Bot Summary: 280/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No. The appeal has been admitted on 07.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions of Rs.89,02,180/- made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ii. 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. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 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.594 of 2017 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 13.7.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.594 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai .Appellant Vs Shri Erich Nassel Hauf, Chennai-96 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No.280/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan, 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 learned counsel on record for respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 14.7.2016 made in ITA.No. 280/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for assessment year 2012-13. 3. appeal has been admitted on 07.12.2017 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in deleting additions of Rs.89,02,180/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Is not finding of Tribunal bad by merely relying on affidavit, which is self serving document and cannot be acted upon especially when no proof or evidence was placed by assessee to substantiate it ? iii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in deleting additions amounting to Rs.134,88,000/- on account of investments in house property without even going into particulars like full value of investments, year of investments, etc., before deciding issue? 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 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. No costs. 13.7.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.594 of 2017 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.594 of 2017 13.7.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Erich Nassel Hauf
Report Error