9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, Chennai 'C' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) respectively for the assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2008-09 and 2010-11. 2. The Revenue filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in interpreting the term 'land on which construction of building is not permissible under any law' in the definition of urban land under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to include the impugned land where construction is only restricted ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the finding of fact of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse as it has concluded from the report of the DVO that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of law have to be answered against the revenue, in the light of the Circular issued by Central Board Direct Taxes [for brevity, 'CBDT'] bearing Circular No.5/2019 dated 05.02.2019, which reads as follows: 'Reference is invited to Board's Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Circular") vide which monetary limits for filing of income tax appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court were specified. Para 11 of the Circular states that the monetary limits specified in para 3 shall not apply to writ matters and Direct tax matters other than Income tax and filing of appeals in such cases shall continue to be governe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice of all concerned. 6. Hindi version will follow.' 5. In view of the above circular, the threshold limit fixed by the CBDT for the revenue to pursue the appeals has been made applicable to Wealth Tax Appeals also with effect from 05.02.2019. In the light of the above circular, the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the revenue. 6. Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground of law tax effect without taking note of the fact that the revenue audit objection is there in the assessee's case and therefore, the cases would come within the exemption culled out in the circular. 7. It is not clear w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2010) 194 Taxman 306 (Bom). Thus, considering that factually, the CITA on verification found that the land falls within the prohibited zone CRZ III category. 10. We find no question of law arises for consideration in the instant cases and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the appeals filed by the revenue. As mentioned above, the substantial question of law no.3 raised by the revenue is, stating that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect, without noting the revenue audit objection. Since we have decided in favour of the assessee on merits, substantial question of law no.3 does not arise for consideration. 11. For the above reasons, the appeals filed by the revenue are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
