THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER O vs. LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT.L

TCA.No.35 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.01.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.35 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 4(1), Chennai - 34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd, No.26, Vandalur, Kelambakkam Main Road, Keelakottayur Village, Chennai - 18. PAN: AAECA 7997B ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.06.2017 made in ITA.No.3427/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Narayanan for Mr.N.V.Balaji 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.35 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,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 12.06.2017 made in ITA.No.3427/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding that the storage fees collected by the assessee cannot be treated as income in the year of receipt i.e. in the AY 2012-13 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding that out of the storage fees collected during the year only a part is accrued as income of the year although there was no liability to refund any part of such receipt as per the agreement? 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.35 of 2021 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case an din law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the addition contrary to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.N.V.Narayanan, appearing for Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the respondent/assessee has already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.35 of 2021 assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 18.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.35 of 2021 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 4(1), Chennai - 34. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.35 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk TCA.No.35 of 2021 18.01.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/