The High Court dismissed Tax Case Appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect below the threshold limit specified in CBIC Circular No. 17/2019, leaving substantial questions of law open.
Tax Case Appeals are dismissed on account of low tax effect; substantial questions of law are left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 06.11.2020
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Tax Case Appeal Nos.990, 1007 & 1008 of 2019
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, Chennai-34 ...Appellant in All Appeal
M/s.Jubilee Plot and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-40 ...Respondent in All Appeal
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 24.12.2018 made respectively in ITA.Nos. 1447, 1452 and 1445/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment years 2010-11, 2015-16 and 2009-10 against the order dated 12/1/18 and made in ITA Nos.212,94, and 211 on the file of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai-34 and against the order dated 31/3/16 and made in GI No./PA.No.AABCJ 3938 J on the file of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle 2(2)Chennai respectively.
For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC
For Respondent: Mr.M.Vivekanandan
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.M.Vivekanandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee.
“i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessing officer cannot initiate proceedings under Section 153A of the I.T.Act, where there was no incriminating material found during the course of search operation u/s.132 of the Act?
(ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in not taking cognizance of the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. St.Francis Clay Decor Tiles (385 ITR 624) and the Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. V. DCIT (49 taxmann.com 98)? and
(iii) Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the disallowance of land development expenses @ 24.35% of the said expenditure is not warranted, relying upon its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 2007-08 and 200809, against which appeal has been preferred by the department ?”
Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
-Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS ) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar To
1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench.
2 Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central II, Chennai-34.
3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18
Chennai-34.
4 The Assistant of Commissioner of
Income Tax Centre Circle 2(2), Chennai-34
+ 1 C.C. to MR.VIVEKANANDAN, Advocate SR.NO.36119
+ 1 C.C. to MR.VIVEKANANDAN, Advocate SR.NO.36120
+ 1 C.C. to MR.VIVEKANANDAN, Advocate SR.NO.36121
+ 1 C.C. to MR.T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, Advocate SR.NO. 36103
TCA.Nos.990, 1007 & 1008 of 2019
RS [CO]
RR 19/12/2020
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central II, Chennai-34
M/s. Jubilee Plot and Housing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-40
T.S. Sivagnanam
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
