SM. PUSHPA C. KATARIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

TCA/449/2015HC Madras17 February 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. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued Form – 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act on 04.01.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the penalty and disallowance were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pushpa C. Kataria, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "D" Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2006-07. The High Court admitted the appeal on 22.07.2015, framing substantial questions of law concerning the ITAT's direction to confine minimum penalty to Rs. 40 lakhs and the confirmation of this minimum penalty based on estimated bogus purchases of Rs. 40 lakhs despite the assessee producing confirmation letters. The matter was listed for hearing before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the respondent to confine minimum penalty only qua disallowance/addition of Rs.40 lakhs? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the minimum penalty of Rs.40 lakhs based on the estimated addition with regard to bogus purchase of Rs.40 lakhs when the appellant had discharged her burden by producing confirmation letters from her creditors? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT was correct in confining the penalty to Rs. 40 lakhs and that the minimum penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs should not have been confirmed, especially since the assessee had discharged her burden by producing confirmation letters from creditors regarding the alleged bogus purchases. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the Revenue regarding these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015 Pushpa C.Kataria ... Appellant Vs.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward XI (4), Chennai. ... Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 30.04.2014 passed in I.T.A.No.1893/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa 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 Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015 dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No 1893/Mds/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2.The appeal was admitted on 22.07.2015 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the respondent to confine minimum penalty only qua disallowance/addition of Rs.40 lakhs? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the minimum penalty of Rs.40 lakhs based on the estimated addition with regard to bogus purchase of Rs.40 lakhs when the appellant had discharged her burden by producing confirmation letters from her creditors?” 3.We have heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015 4.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. 5.We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form – 3 on 04.01.2021 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.449 of 2015 6.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.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 17.02.2021

Internet : Yes

va To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward XI (4), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. va Tax Case Appeal No.449 of 2015

17.02.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →