M/S ACID & CHEMICALS CO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVIII

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/484/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045036201128 October 2021Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, acceding to the request of the assessee's advocate, disposed of the Tax Appeal as not pressed. The Court explicitly stated that it did not enter into the merits of the case nor expressed any opinion on the substantial question of law. The operative direction was to permit the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court also noted that if the appellant were unable to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for any reason, it would be open for them to take recourse to legal remedies available under the law. No specific finding was given on the penalty or the addition under Section 68.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Acid & Chemicals Co., filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was admitted on 25.01.2012, based on a substantial question of law concerning the upholding of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to an addition made under Section 68. The Revenue was represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII. The procedural history indicates that the appeal reached the High Court after being decided by the Tribunal. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition of investment which it upheld under Section 68 in the hands of the assessee in assessment appeal? The assessee's contention, as presented by learned advocate Mr. Ketan Shah, was that the appellant desired to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had received Form No. 3. The withdrawal of the pending tax appeal was a prerequisite for receiving Form No. 4. Therefore, the assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/484/2011 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 484 of 2011 ========================================================== M/S ACID & CHEMICALS CO Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVIII ========================================================== Appearance: MR KETAN H SHAH(2705) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 LD SR ADV.MR.MANISH BHATT for the Opponent (s) No.1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 28/10/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. For

considering

the

substantial question of law on 25.01.2012, this Court has admitted this appeal. Following is the substantial question of law. “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition of investment which it upheld under Section 68 in the hands of the assessee in assessment appeal?” 2. Learned advocate, Mr.Ketan Shah submits Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/484/2011 ORDER DATED: 28/10/2021 that the appellant is desirous of availing the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No.3 has already been received. Once he withdraws the pending tax appeal, he will be given the Form No.4 and therefore, the Court may permit to withdraw the present appeal. 3. Acceding to the request, the Tax Appeal is disposed of as not pressed, without entering into the merits and expressing any opinion. 4. If for some reasons the appellant is unable to avail the benefit of the scheme, it shall be open for the appellant to take legal recourse, available under the law. Sd/- (SONIA GOKANI, J) Sd/- (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →