Damodaran Jayalakshmi vs. The Income Tax Officer

TCA/11/2024HC Madras09 January 2026Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan, took the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant on record. The court noted that the appellant had sought to withdraw the appeal due to having availed the benefits of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” during the appeal's pendency. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the Tribunal or the substantive issues of the appeal were not addressed as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Damodaran Jayalakshmi, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal was against an order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.316/CHNY/2020. The assessment year in question was 2011-12. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(2), Income Tax Department, Chennai. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. This request was based on instructions received, indicating that the appellant had availed the benefits of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme” during the pendency of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA No.11 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN TCA No.11 of 2024 Damodaran Jayalakshmi .. Appellant -vs- The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(2), Income Tax Department, Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in ITA No.316/CHNY/2020 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.Tarun G. for Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Dr.S.Satyanarayanan Senior Panel Counsel * * * * * Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:35 pm ) TCA No.11 of 2024 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal in view of the instructions received that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had availed the benefits of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Taking the statement on record, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 09.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:35 pm ) TCA No.11 of 2024 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(2), Income Tax Department, Chennai. Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:35 pm ) TCA No.11 of 2024 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. (sra) TCA No.11 of 2024 09.01.2026 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:35 pm )

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →