COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR SURANA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was awaiting orders. Consequently, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the declaration and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 2011-12 and had set aside the Assessing Officer's order, remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 03.11.2020 and was awaiting orders.
What were the issues?
The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination when the Assessing Officer had already duly examined the matter. 2. Whether the ITAT was right in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer, shifting the onus to the Revenue to bring on record the assessee's role in promoting the company, their relationship with promoters, and any role in inflating share prices. Assessee's contention: The assessee submitted that they had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and were awaiting orders. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.192 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.192 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 10(3), Chennai ...Appellant Vs Shri Praveen Kumar Surana ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 0.10.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.605/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC For Respondent: Mr.Ashok Pathy for M/s.Pass Associates 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.192 of 2020 dated 01.10.2019 made in I.T.A.No.605/Chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal was admitted on 24.7.2020 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter when the Assessing Officer has already duly examined the matter before passing the assessment order ? and 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and shifting the onus to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relationship of the assessee if any with the promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc.?” 3. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Ashok Pathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.192 of 2020 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 03.11.2020 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. 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 made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. 17.12.2020 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.192 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.192 of 2020 17.12.2020 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 Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026