M/S ERODE ANNAI SPINNING MIL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefits conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, a beneficial legislation enacted for the resolution of disputed tax matters. The declarations submitted by the assessee were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. In light of this development, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law that arose in the tax case appeal. The appeal was disposed of, directing the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Erode Annai Spinning Mills P Ltd, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 30.09.2015, for the assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the validity of reassessment under Section 147 and the denial of set-off for excess depreciation against deemed income under Section 69B. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. This development was conceded by the revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the reassessment framed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the absence of tangible/fresh materials and a potential case of opinion based on the original assessment order. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the denial of the benefit of set-off of excess depreciation carried forward from earlier assessment years against the deemed income assessed under Section 69B of the Act, which emanated from the appellant's core business. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they had availed the benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by filing the requisite forms, which were accepted, and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal had become infructuous. Revenue's Contention: The revenue fairly conceded the submission made by the assessee regarding the availing of benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No. 1219 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.1219 of 2015 M/s Erode Annai Spinning Mills P Ltd 72, Mudali Thottam Veerappanchatram Erode – 638 004 PAN: AAACE4596N .. Appellant Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – I Coimbatore
.. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, dated 30.09.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.1389/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.S. Sridhar For Respondent : Mrs.K.G. Usha Rani
Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 1219 of 2015 (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1389/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The above appeal was admitted on 05.01.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the re-assessment framed under Section 147 of the Act even though there was no tangible/fresh materials coupled with blatant case of opinion on the plain reading of the original assessment order dated 31.12.2009? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the denial of the benefit of set off the excess depreciation carried forward from earlier assessment years against the deemed income assessed under section 69B of the Act emanated from the core business of the appellant on the miconstruction of the provisions governing in relation Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 1219 of 2015 thereto?” 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Assessee submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted and Form 3 was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2020 by the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel has also filed a memo dated 21.10.2021 to that effect. 4. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentRevenue. 5. This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, as per which, the assessee has already availed the benefit conferred under the beneficial legislation viz., the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, enacted for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, which came into force with effect Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 1219 of 2015 from 17.03.2020; and the declarations submitted by the assessee were also accepted and Form 3 was also issued to them by the Income Tax Department. In view of such development, it is unnecessary for this court to decide the substantial questions of law arisen in this tax case appeal. 6. Therefore, recording the submissions so made by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal stands disposed of, directing the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earlies. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.K., J.) 11.11.2021
dhk Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – I, Coimbatore Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 1219 of 2015 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. dhk Tax Case Appeal No.1219 of 2015
11.11.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026