THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOM vs. MEENA DEVI RANKA

PDF · subscribers
TCA/356/2020HC Madras05 November 2020Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM8 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, provided an option for resolving tax disputes. The Court was informed that the assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of this Act. Consequently, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Department was directed to process the application expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.01.2020. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2012-13 and challenged the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination and remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The substantial questions of law were admitted on 07.10.2020. Subsequently, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee, Smt. Meena Devi Ranka, filed a declaration under Section 4 of this Act on 30.05.2020.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination, given that the Assessing Officer had duly examined all material. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer, shifting the onus to the Revenue to prove the assessee's role in promoting a company, inflating prices, etc., when this exercise had allegedly already been done by the Assessing Officer and SEBI, citing decisions in Kanhaiyal and Sons (HUF) and Sunil Kumar Lalwani. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse, contradicting the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact. The Revenue argued that the Assessing Officer had already conducted a thorough examination and that the Tribunal's order shifted the onus inappropriately. The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, beyond their counsel stating that a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 4,Section 3

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant Versus Smt Meena Devi Ranka No.14/2, Kasi Chetty Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai PAN:AADPR7244J .. Respondent Prayer:- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.129/Chny/2019 dated 31.01.2020 relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing counsel

For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskar 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 JUDGMENT [Order of the Court was made by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

, J.]

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.129/Chny/2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. This appeal was 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 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 Assessing Officer is to bring on record the role of the Assessee in promoting the Company and the 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 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 him 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 G.Baskar, 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 President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020

4.

In terms of the said Act, the assessee has been given an option to put an end to the tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Under Section 2(j) “disputed tax” has been defined. In terms of Section 3, where a declarant means a person, who files a declaration under Section 4 on or before the last date files a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force, the amount payable by the declarant shall be determined in terms of Section 3(a-c) thereunder. 5. The First Proviso to Section 3 states that in case, where an Appeal or Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition is filed by the Income Tax authority on any issue before the Appellate Forum, the amount payable shall be one-half of the amount in the table stipulated in Section 3 calculated on such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing of the declaration is as per Section 4 of the Act and the particulars to be furnished are also mentioned in the Sub Sections of Section 4. Section 5 of the Act deals with the time and manner of the payment and Section 6 deals with Immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases, where the Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. 6. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has already filed the declaration under Section 4 of the Act on 30.05.2020. 7. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the 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 Division Bench for orders. 8. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J) 05.11.2020 Kak Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. Kak T.C.A.No.356 of 2020 05.11.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →