J.SRINIVASAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application/declaration expeditiously and pass appropriate orders. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to restore it if the ultimate decision on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act is not in their favour. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised in the appeal was left undecided. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri J. Srinivasan, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, 'C' Bench, in ITA No. 1602/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. The dispute pertains to the taxability of additional compensation received by BDCL and shared with Murughasan, which the assessee claimed was not taxable in his hands and should be treated as exempt income arising from the sale of agricultural land. The Revenue is the respondent. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order being challenged by the assessee.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT is correct in holding that additional compensation received on behalf of Murughasan, pursuant to a tripartite agreement, should not be treated as income from other sources in the hands of the Appellant and is assessable only in the hands of Murughasan, and is to be treated as exempt income arising out of the sale of agricultural land? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the additional compensation was not to be treated as income from other sources in his hands and was assessable only in the hands of Murughasan, being exempt income from the sale of agricultural land. The assessee also submitted that a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was filed on 30.1.2021 and orders were awaited. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the substantial question of law. However, the Revenue was represented by its counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
TCA.No.448 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.9.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Tax Case Appeal No.448 of 2021 Shri J.Srinivasan ...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(2), Chennai. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai made in CO.68/Mds/2014 in I.T.A.No. 1602/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.448 of 2021 the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 13.11.2017 made in CO.68/Mds/2014 in I.T.A.No.1602/Mds/ 2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT that the additional compensation (received by BDCL and shared with Murughasan on account of triplicate aggrement) received on behalf of Murughasan not to be treated as income from other sources in the hands of Appellant and Assessable only in the hands of Murughasan and is to be treated as exempt income arising out of sale of agricultural land ?” 3. We have heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.448 of 2021 Se Vishwas Scheme on 30.1.2021 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. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised is left open. No costs. 02.9.2021
3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.448 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J mka To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Cirlce I(2), Chennai TCA.No.448 of 2021 02.9.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
