Rangachari Surendhiran vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2),

TCA/184/2024HC Madras2024/MHC/402803 December 2024Bench: Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has availed the ongoing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appellant's counsel also presented a copy of Form II and the challan for tax payment, indicating compliance with the scheme's requirements. Based on this submission and the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals, the Court proceeded to record the endorsement for withdrawal. Consequently, both tax case appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original appeals or the orders passed by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras were filed by Shri. Rangachari Surendhiran against the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2), Salem. These appeals, TCA Nos. 184 & 186 of 2024, were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They challenged orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. Specifically, TCA No. 184 of 2024 challenged the order dated 19.10.2022 in ITA No. 1314/CHNY/2019, and TCA No. 186 of 2024 challenged the order dated 08.09.2023 in M.A. No. 94/CHNY/2023 arising from the same ITA. The matter was listed for hearing before the Division Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be withdrawn by the appellant. This issue arises from the appellant's submission that he has availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Assessee's Contention: The appellant, through his counsel, stated that he has availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and has filed the necessary documentation (Form II and challan for tax payment). Consequently, he seeks to withdraw the present tax case appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the appeals. The senior standing counsel for the respondent was present.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1314/CHNY/2019

M.A.No.94/CHNY/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

2024:MHC:4028 T.C.A.Nos.184 & 186 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.12.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN T.C.A.Nos.184 & 186 of 2024 Shri.Rangachari Surendhiran .. Appellant in both appeals vs Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2), Salem. .. Respondent in both appeals Prayer in TCA No.184 of 2024: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 19.10.2022 in ITA No.1314/CHNY/2019. Prayer in TCA No.186 of 2024: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A'

Bench,

Chennai

dated

08.09.2023

in M.A.No.94/CHNY/2023 arising in ITA No.1314/CHNY/2019. (In both appeals) For Appellant : Mr.T.Vasudevan For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.184 & 186 of 2024 DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J. COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J) Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant has availed the on-going Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and he files a copy of Form II and the challan for tax payment. He thus seeks withdrawal of the present tax case appeals and makes an endorsement to this effect, recording which, both the tax case appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]

03.12.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes vs T.C.A.Nos.184 & 186 of 2024 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →