THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. PINKY DEVI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 30.12.2020. The Court referred to its own decision in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] which had answered an identical issue in favour of the Revenue. However, in light of the subsequent development of the assessee opting for the scheme, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on their declaration under the scheme was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and no costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2014-15 and challenged the ITAT's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination. The ITAT had remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer, citing decisions where the onus was shifted to the revenue to prove the assessee's role in promoting a company, inflating prices, and their relation to promoters. The Revenue contended that all materials were available to the ITAT, and no new material warranted a remand. The assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Assessing Officer for re-examination, especially when all available materials were before the Tribunal and no new material was placed to warrant a remand? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer by quoting decisions in Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Kanhaiyalal and Sons (HUF) wherein the onus was shifted to the revenue to prove the assessee's role in promoting the company, their relation to promoters, and price inflation, which exercise had already been done by the AO/CIT(A)? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of evidence and burden of proof) 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse, especially when it is contrary to the principle that the person asserting a fact must discharge the initial burden, after which the burden shifts to the department? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on 30.12.2020. Revenue's contention: The Tribunal was wrong in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer as all materials were available and the exercise of proving the assessee's role and price inflation had already been done by the AO/CIT(A). The Tribunal's finding was perverse and contrary to the established principle of burden of proof.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
TCA.No.145 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.3.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.145 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs Mrs.Pinky Devi ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 04.3.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.2242/Chny/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 04.3.2020 made in I.T.A.No.2242/Chny/2017 on the file of the 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.145 of 2021 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Assessing officer for re- examination, especially when all the materials available with the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were available before the Tribunal and there was no new material placed before it to warrant a remand? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in the case of Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Kanhaiyalal and Sons (HUF) in ITA No.1849/ Chny/2014 wherein the onus has been shifted to the revenue with a direction that the Assessing Officer is to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relation of the assessee if any with that of the promotors and role of inflating of prices etc which exercise had already been done by the 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.145 of 2021 AO/CIT(A)? iii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse especially when the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the time tested principle that the person who asserts a fact has to discharge the initial burden cast upon him to show that the said facts are true and only thereafter the burden would shift to the department?” 3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 30.12.2020 in Form No.3. 5. It is not out of place to make a mention that an identical issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] [reported in (2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180] and the issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue. 6. However, in the light of the subsequent development that the respondent/assessee opted to avail the benefit of the said scheme, the 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.145 of 2021 assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision 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 made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 7. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. No costs. 02.3.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. RS 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.145 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS TCA.No.145 of 2021 02.3.2021 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026