THE COMMISISONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI M.R.CHENDILNATHAN

Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Versus Shri M.R.Chendilnathan, No.22, 2nd Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Chemmencherry, Chennai - 600 019. PAN: ACYPC 9428 N ... Respondent

Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2010/Chny/2017. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar For Respondent : Ms. V.Pavithra Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 for M/s. Pass Associates JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, relating to the assessment year 2011-2012. 2.By order dated 26.08.2020, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made under Section 40A (3) especially no exceptional circumstances prescribed under Rule 6DD warranting such cash payment were satisfied by the assessee? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, by holding that genuineness of the payment was sufficient and that the assessee was not required to establish the exceptional circumstances warranting cash payments which is contrary to the wording in the section? (ii) Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by holding that disallowance made under Section Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 40A (3) of the Act by holding that Revenue has not made any adverse finding with respect to generation of unaccounted money or Tax evasion? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of bad debts when the assessee had failed to substantiate that it had taken into account in computing the income of the assessee either in the relevant previous year or in the earlier previous years as mandated under Section 39(1) (vii)? " 3.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 02.11.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 02.11.2021 to that effect. 4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/ assessee. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 5.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.] 30.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No msr/av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle - 1(1), Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av Tax Case Appeal No.233 of 2020

30.08.2022 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis