TCA.No.227 of 2020 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.08.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.227 of 2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Intellectual Realty Old No.34, new No.58, Veerabadran Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. PAN:AADFI1760N ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1074/Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai for Assessment Year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 22.07.2016 made in ITA.No. 1074/Mds/2013 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for assessment year 2009-10. 3. appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1.Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in deleting addition made under Section 69A as unexplained income? 2.Whether finding and reasoning of Tribunal is proper by deleting addition made u/s.69A on ground that assessee has sold 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 property to shah enterprises through agreement of sale which is contrary to Apex Court decision rendered in case of Suraj Lamp P Ltd reported in 340 ITR page 1 which has held that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by registered sale deed and in absence of it no right, title or interest in immovable property could be transferred? 3.Whether Tribunal was right in allowing claim of assessee in respect of cash payment made for hut vacation expenses especially when assessee did not produce any evidence for payments made nor was cash books produced before AO in respect of payment made and that too by contravening Rule 46A f I.T Rules? 4.Whether Tribunal was right in not adjudicating specific grounds raised in Ground 3.2 in respect of improvement charges while making disallowance u/s.40A(3) in its 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 appeal filed before it? 5. Was it proper for Tribunal to admit fresh evidence in respect of additions made u/s.69 and in respect of hut vacation expenses without giving opportunity to AO to examine same while allowing claim of assessee? 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 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial question of law framed is 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. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 19.08.2020 Internet: Yes /No Index : Yes/No To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.227 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J sk TCA.No.227 of 2020 19.08.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Intellectual Realty