M/S.NEYVELI LIGNITE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/416/2016HC Madras21 April 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, having been issued Form-3. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the validity of reopening under Section 147 and the classification of loose tools as capital expenditure were not adjudicated by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "A" Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02 and challenges the ITAT's decision on two substantial questions of law. The ITAT's order was passed in I.T.A.No.177/Mds/2009. The High Court admitted the appeal on 02.08.2016. Subsequently, the Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, to resolve disputed tax matters. The assessee informed the court that they had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that loose tools which do not provide enduring benefit should be classified as capital expenditure and not as revenue expenditure? The assessee, through their counsel Ms.G.Janane, argued that the appeal should be withdrawn in light of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue, represented by Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel, did not present arguments on the merits of the substantial questions of law as the appeal was sought to be withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016 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.416 of 2016 M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (F&AB) Income Tax Section, Corporate Office, Neyveli – 607 801.

... Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(4), Chennai. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated 26.06.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.177/Mds/2009, Assessment Year 2001-02. For Appellant : Ms.G.Janane for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.177/Mds/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02. The above appeal has been admitted on 02.08.2016 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? 2.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in holding that loose tools which does not provide enduring benefit should be classified as capital expenditure and not as revenue expenditure?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016 2. We have heard Ms.G.Janane for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/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. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 09.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [K.R., J.] 21.04.2021

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(4), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.416 of 2016

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →