THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. RATTHA HOLDING COMPANY PVT L

Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs.

M/s.Rattha Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, Tower-C, Tek Meadows, No.51, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, dated 24.05.2019 passed in I.T.A.No.1016/Chny/2017. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.355 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 24.05.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1016/Chny/2017 for the assessment year 2013-14. The above appeal has been admitted on 07.10.2020 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of bad debts without considering the fact that the amounts paid were in the nature of advances and not a debt in the first instance? 2.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper in allowing the claim of bad debts especially when the assessee had not satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act? And 3.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.V.Thomas and Co.Ltd. [reported in 48 ITR 67] and that of Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020 Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [reported in 79 ITR 514], which has clearly held that before a debt can become bad or doubtful, it should be first a debt, which is not in the case on hand?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue. 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 President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue submitted that the respondent/assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the respondent/assessee had already been Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020 issued with Form–3 vide Reference No.223709130220121.

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 Senior Counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [M.D., J.] [K.R., J.] 21.04.2021

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020

21.04.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/