THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SMT NAMITA FOMRA

TCA/245/2020HC Madras17 April 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY6 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 15.01.2021. Since the assessee had been issued Form-3, the High Court held that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the three substantial questions of law were not reached as the appeal was settled 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 03.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai "A" SMC Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that the assessee, Smt. Namita Fomra, had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee's counsel confirmed that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee on 15.01.2021 under the scheme.

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 Assessing Officer had considered all the material placed while passing the assessment order? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer by quoting decisions in Kanhailal & Sons (HUF) and Sunil Kumar Lalwani, shifting the onus to the Revenue to bring on record the assessee's role in promoting the company, relation with promoters, and role of inflating prices, which exercise had already been done by the Assessing Officer and SEBI? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of burden of proof and ITAT's powers of remand) 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 to show that the said facts are true and only thereafter the burden would shift to the Department? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 15.01.2021. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. Smt.Namita Fomra C/o.Shri T.N.Seetharaman Advocate, No.384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086.

... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" SMC Bench, dated 03.09.2019 passed in I.T.A.No.2924/Chny/2018. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar Page 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" SMC Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2924/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The above appeal has been admitted on 28.08.2020 on 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 considered 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 Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in the case of Kanhailal & Sons (HUF) in ITA No.1849/Chny/2014 Sunil Kumar Lalwani and that Aashesh Kumar Lalwani wherein the onus has been shifted to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing Office is to bring on record the Page 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 role of the assssee 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 Assessing Officer and the SEBI? and 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 to show that the said facts are true and only thereafter the burden would shift to the Department?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the Page 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on 15.01.2021.

5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 17.04.2021

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

mkn Page 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" SMC Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Page 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.245 of 2020

17.04.2021 Page 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →