THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SMT JAYANTHILAL JAIN SOWALCH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that an identical issue had been considered by a Division Bench of the same court in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF], which was answered in favour of the Revenue. However, due to the subsequent development that the respondent/assessee opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal. This restoration would be permissible in the event the ultimate decision taken on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 20.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-15. The ITAT had set aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) order and remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the AO had already conducted a thorough examination. The assessee, Smt. Jayanthilal Jain Sowalchand, had also filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on 20.1.2021.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer for re-examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined the matter in extenso while passing the assessment order? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the Tribunal to set aside an order). 2. 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 Kanhaiyalal and Sons (HUF) and others, shifting the onus to the revenue to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company, the relation of the assessee with promoters, and the role of inflating prices, which exercise had already been done by the AO and SEBI? (Question of law and fact, concerning the burden of proof and the scope of remand proceedings). 3. 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? (Question of law, concerning perversity of findings and burden of proof). Assessee's contentions: The assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on 20.1.2021. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the AO had duly examined the matter in extenso and that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the order and remitting the issue back, especially when the onus had already been discharged by the AO and SEBI. The Revenue also contended that the Tribunal's finding was perverse and contrary to established principles 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.186 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.4.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.186 of 2020
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Smt.Jayanthilal Jain Sowalchand ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.353/Chny/2019 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 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.186 of 2020 dated 20.11.2019 made in I.T.A.No.353/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appeal was admitted on 23.7.2020 on 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 order passed by the Assessing Officer for re-examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined the matter in extenso while passing the assessment order ? 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 Kanhaiyalal and Sons (HUF) in ITA No.1849/Chny/2014, Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani 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 promoters and role of inflating of prices etc which exercise had already been done by the AO and the SEBI? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.186 of 2020 And 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 20.1.2021 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 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.186 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS 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. 01.4.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.186 of 2020 4/4 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 Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026