COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI VIPUL MUNOTH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 20.11.2020 and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The tax case appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 10(5), Chennai, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 2015-16 and was made in I.T.A.No.3519/Chny/2018. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-assessee, Shri Vipul Munoth, submitted a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 20.11.2020 and was awaiting orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter when the Assessing Officer had already duly examined it before passing the assessment order? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the ITAT under the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer and shifting the onus to the Revenue, directing the Assessing Officer to bring on record the assessee's role in promoting the company, their relationship with promoters, and their role in inflating share prices? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers of the ITAT and the burden of proof under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The assessee submitted a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 20.11.2020 and is awaiting orders. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.364 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.11.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.364 of 2020
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward 10(5), Chennai ...Appellant Vs Shri Vipul Munoth ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.3519/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC For Respondent: Mr.P.Hari Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 06.12.2019 made in I.T.A.No.3519/Chny/2018 on the file of the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.364 of 2020 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The above appeal has been admitted on 15.10.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter when the Assessing Officer has already duly examined the matter before passing the assessment order ? and ii. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and shifting the onus to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relationship of the assessee, if any, with the promoters, role of the assessee in inflating the price of shares, etc.?” 3. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.P.Hari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 4. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.364 of 2020 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 20.11.2020 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 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. 24.11.2020 RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.364 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.364 of 2020 24.11.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026