THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI SHIYAL VIMAL KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
TCA/196/2021HC Madras22 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that during the pendency of the Tax Case Appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee filed the necessary declarations, which were accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on October 28, 2021. Both the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (assessee) fairly conceded that in view of this subsequent development, nothing survives for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that the appeal stood disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific questions of law raised by the Revenue were not adjudicated on merits.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated August 28, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "B" Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2015-16 and concerns the ITAT's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's (AO) order for re-examination. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee, Shri Shiyal Vimal Kumar, availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee filed the necessary declarations, which were accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on October 28, 2021. Both the Revenue and the assessee conceded that the appeal had become infructuous due to this settlement.

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 the AO had duly examined all the material placed while passing the assessment 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 decisions in Anil Kumar Shyed and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani, wherein the onus was shifted to the revenue to bring on record the assessee's role in promoting the company, the assessee's relation with promoters, and the role of inflating prices, which exercise had already been done by the AO and SEBI? 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 would the burden shift to the department? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal was wrong in setting aside the AO's order and remitting the issue back to the AO, particularly when the AO had already conducted a thorough examination and the SEBI had also investigated. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was perverse and contrary to the established principle of burden of proof.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant Vs. Shri Shiyal Vimal Kumar, No.1/504, South Avenue Road, Kodungaiyur, Muthamizh Nagar, Chennai 600 118. PAN: CTNPS7792BF

... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, passed in I.T.A.No.1492/Chny/2019, dated 28.08.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN,J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue challenging the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1492/Chny/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 raising the following substantial questions of law. "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 the assessing officer had duly examined all the material placed while passing the assessment 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 Anil Kumar Shyed and that 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 Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 done by the AO and the SEBI? 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse especially when the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the time tested Principal 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? ” 2.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 28.10.2021. 3.The aforesaid submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ assessee. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr 4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [R.M.D.,J.] [M.S.Q.,J.] 22.08.2022

msr

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6(4), Chennai.

3.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Chennai-34. Tax Case Appeal No.196 of 2021 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →