L.K.SUDHISH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the court that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and requested that the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn to enable them to pursue the matter before the concerned authority. Memos dated 10.11.2021 were filed to this effect. The court noted that this submission was not seriously disputed by the revenue. Consequently, the court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication. The appeals were disposed of, recording the submissions made, with a direction to the authority concerned to process the applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri L.K. Sudhish, filed two Tax Case Appeals (Nos. 299 and 301 of 2016) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I(2), Chennai. The procedural history indicates that the appeals reached the High Court after being decided by the ITAT. The High Court was to consider substantial questions of law raised by the assessee.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide six substantial questions of law. The primary questions raised by the assessee were: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in applying the revenue's case and confirming a 2.5% disallowance despite differences in the grounds of appeal and relief sought. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming a disallowance not based on materials seized during a search, especially when the original assessment under Section 143 was already completed. 3. Whether the ITAT was right in not considering that the Assessing Officer assumed extra-jurisdictional powers in completing the assessment and making disallowances and charging interest. 4. Whether the ITAT erred in confirming a disallowance on items already disallowed or not subject to deduction. 5. Whether the ITAT's interpretation of the calculation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was legally correct. 6. Whether the ITAT was correct in relying on cited facts and cases to disallow the assessee's appeal. The assessee contended that they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn. The revenue did not seriously dispute this submission.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 143,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 & 301 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.11.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 and 301 of 2016 and C.M.P. Nos. 6437 and 6439 of 2016 Shri L.K.Sudhish PAN : AAWPS0074J No.97, Second Cross Street, Venkatesh Nagar, Virugambakkam Chennai-600 092.
... Appellant in both Tax Case Appeals Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -I(2) Chennai-34.
... Respondent in both Tax Case Appeals
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai, dated 16.10.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.694/Mds/2013 and 696/Mds/2013 for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07. Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 & 301 of 2016 For Appellant : Mr. C.V.Salin Nisha in both Tax Case Appeals For Respondent : Mr. T.R.Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel in both Tax Case Appeals COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Assessee, challenging the order dated 16.10.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.694/Mds/2013 and 696/Mds/2013 for the respective Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in applying the case of the revenue, confirming the 2.5% disallowances on the Appellant's appeal where the Grounds of Appeal and relief sought have appreciable differences? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in conforming disallowance which was not out of any materials seized at the time of the search and that the original assessment under section 143 was completed. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in not considering that the Assessing Offcer assumed extra jurisdictional powers in Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 & 301 of 2016 completing the assessment and made the disallowances and the resultant interests. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in conforming disallowance where the same is already disallowed and on items that are not subject to deduction in the circumstance. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in their interpretation on the calculation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and its effect. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in placing reliance on the facts and cases cited above in disallowing the appeal of the Appellant?” 2.When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee submitted that subsequent to the filing of these tax case appeals, the assessee has opted the scheme framed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and hence, the appeals may be dismissed as withdrawn, so as to enable them to pursue the same before the authority concerned. The learned counsel has also filed memos dated 10.11.2021 to that effect. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 & 301 of 2016 3.In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, which has not been seriously disputed on the side of the respondent, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication. Hence, recording the submissions so made, these tax case appeals stand disposed of, with a direction to the authority concerned to process the applications in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 12.11.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No Maya To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -I(2) Chennai-34. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 299 & 301 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya T.C.A. Nos. 299 and 301 of 2016
Dated : 12.11.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 234A
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- 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