PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. SHRI C.KISHANLAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax matters. The Court was informed that the assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of this Act. Consequently, the Court deemed it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration under the Act was not in their favour. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision. The substantial questions of law were left open.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2006-07 and challenged the ITAT's deletion of additions made towards income from undisclosed sources. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order being challenged by the Revenue before the High Court.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in deleting additions made towards income from undisclosed sources, based on findings not supported by evidence and if such an order was perverse. 2. Whether the ITAT was legally justified in deleting additions made towards income from undisclosed sources by concluding that the assessee sold gold jewellery in cash for Rs. 3,14,93,768/- to unnamed persons, a conclusion allegedly not supportable by reasonable inference from the materials. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's findings were not backed by evidence and were perverse. The Revenue also contended that the conclusion regarding the sale of jewellery was not reasonably drawn from the materials before the ITAT. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. .. Appellant Versus Shri.C.Kishanlal .. Respondent Prayer:- This Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''C'' Bench, Chennai dated 20.12.2018 passed in I.T.A.No.2928/Chny/2017. relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 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 20.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2928/Chny/2017 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the additions made towards income from undisclosed sources, by giving findings which are not backed by evidence and such an order is not perverse? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the additions made towards income from undisclosed sources, by drawing conclusion, such as, that the assessee had sold gold jewellery in cash in a span of two months for a whopping amount of Rs.3,14,93,768/- to persons whose names or addresses have not been furnished by the assessee, which cannot be drawn by any reasonable person on the materials placed before the ITAT” 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 2. We have heard T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, 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.
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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 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, 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. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 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. 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 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 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. Kak 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) 22.12.2020 Kak Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.365 of 2019 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026