THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI MUKESH KUMR JAIN

PDF · subscribers
TCA/268/2020HC Madras22 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN5 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 necessary declarations, which were accepted, and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 20.04.2021. In view of this subsequent development, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of. The court did not provide findings on the substantial questions of law as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

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 04.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "C-SMC" Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2013-14 and concerned the ITAT's decision in ITA No.2973/Chny/2018. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law on 07.09.2020. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee, Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, filed declarations, and received Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears on 20.04.2021.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination, given that the Assessing Officer had duly examined all material evidence. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer, shifting the onus to the revenue to establish the assessee's role in promoting a company, their relation to promoters, and price inflation, especially when these aspects were already examined by the Assessing Officer and SEBI. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse, contradicting the principle that the party asserting a fact bears the initial burden of proof. Assessee's arguments: Not recorded as there was no appearance for the respondent. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order and remitting the issue back, as the Assessing Officer had already conducted a thorough examination. The Revenue also argued that the Tribunal's decision shifted the burden of proof incorrectly, contrary to established principles, and that the finding was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020 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.268 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant Vs. Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain No.38, Ekambareswar Agraharam Street, 1st Floor, Chennai 600 003. PAN: AHMPM2972Q

... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C- SMC” Bench, Chennai, passed in I.T.A.No.2973/Chny/2018, dated 04.07.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020 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 04.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C-SMC” Bench, Chennai, ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2973/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. On 07.09.2020, this Tax Case Appeal was admitted by this Court 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 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 kanhaiyal and 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 Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020 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? 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?” 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 20.04.2021. 4.In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020 submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, 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 “C-SMC” Bench, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-5, Chennai.

3.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Chennai-34. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020 R. MAHADEVAN, J and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr Tax Case Appeal No.268 of 2020

22.08.2022 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →