JAYADEEP KUMAR MAHESWARI, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1225/2015HC Madras26 March 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY6 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought permission to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal. Recording this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessee. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration prayer without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jaydeep Kumar Maheswari, proprietor of M/s. Alco Metals, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench, dated July 9, 2015. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2011-2012. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantial questions of law admitted for consideration related to whether the ITAT was correct in holding that a property was not urban land under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and whether the finding was contrary to documentary evidence establishing it as agricultural land under Section 2(14)(iii)(b). The High Court heard arguments from both the assessee and the revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property is not an urban land within the meaning of Clause (a) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when documentary evidence proved it to be agricultural land falling within the meaning of Clause (b) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in recording a finding contrary to contemporaneous documents produced by the appellant from statutory revenue authorities, corroborating communication received by the Assessing Officer from the Deputy Registrar, Aalot Jilla, Ratlam District, Madhya Pradesh, which established the land as agricultural land. Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal, stating that the assessee had filed requisite Forms 1 and 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the substantial questions of law, but their counsel was heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 2(14)(iii),Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26.03.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 Jaydeep Kumar Maheswari, Prop. M/s. Alco Metals, 57/1, Moore Street, Chennai – 600 001. PAN ACNPJ 7942F ... Appellant v. The Income Tax Officer, Business ward – VIII(4), Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated 09.07.2015 in ITA.No.1157/Mds/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011.2012. Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 For Appellant : Ms. Vinu Pradha for Dr. A. Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel For Respondent : Mr. A.Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms.V.Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 09.07.2015 made in ITA.No.1157/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D" Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2011.2012. 2.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “ (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the property is not an urban land within the meaning of Clause a to S.2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is correct in law when the documentary evidence would prove that the property is an agricultural land falling within the Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 meaning of clause b to S.12(14(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in recording a finding contrary to the contemporaneous document produced by the appellant from the statutory revenue authorities corroborating the communication received by the Assessing Officer from the Deputy Registrar Aalot Jilla, Ratlam District Madhya Pradesh which establsihed that the land is agricultural land?”

3.

We have heard Ms. Vinu Pradha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 17th March 2020. 5. Ms. Vinu Pradha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the assessee has already filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Act, hence, she seeks permission of this court to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal. 6. . Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the assessee has already filed requisite Forms 1 and 2 and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 26.03.2021

2/2 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj

To 1. The Income Tax Officer, Business ward – VIII(4), Chennai – 600 006. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"A" Bench Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj T.C.A.No.1225 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 26.03.2021 2/2 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)

All 238 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →