SHRI VVR VENKATACHALAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/453/2017HC Madras13 June 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee informed the court that the assessee had filed Forms 1 and 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the assessee submitted that nothing further survived for adjudication and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Recording these submissions and the memo filed by the assessee, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The appellant-assessee filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertained to the Block Period 1997-98 to 2003-04. The dispute involved the addition of Rs.15,60,000/- representing cash found and seized from the assessee's locker, which the ITAT sustained. The assessee contended that cash balance was available in the books of accounts and questioned the ITAT's reasoning for sustaining the addition due to the non-availability of bank seals/stickers on the cash bundles. The assessee also raised a ground regarding the ITAT's alleged perversity in implementing its earlier order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.15,60,000/- representing cash found and seized from the appellant's locker for the block period, despite the availability of cash balance in the books of accounts, on the ground of non-availability of bank seals/stickers on the cash bundles? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in its conclusion in para 4 of the impugned order, despite its earlier directions dated 17.04.2008 being completely brushed aside, indicating perversity in the orders passed while implementing the said earlier order? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT erred in sustaining the addition of cash by overlooking the availability of cash balance in the books of accounts. The assessee also contended that the ITAT's order demonstrated perversity as it disregarded its own prior directions. The assessee relied on the principle that cash found should be explained by book balances. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.06.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 VVR Venkatachalam ... Appellant -Vs- The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle-XIV, Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai in I.T.(SS)A.No.1/MDS/2016. For Appellant : Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee, challenging the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.(SS)A.No.1/MDS/2016, relating to the Block Period 1997-98 to 2003-04, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for reaching their conclusion to sustain the addition of Rs.15,60,000/-representing the cash found and seized from the locker of the appellant in the computation of the undisclosed income for the block period under consideration on account of the non availability of seal/sticker of the banks in the said cash bundles while overlooking the availability of cash balance in the books of accounts? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law for reaching their conclusion in para 4 of the impugned order despite their direction contained in their order dated 17.04.2008 which directions were completely brushed aside proving the perversity in the orders passed while implementing the said order rendered by them in the first round? 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo dated 30.10.2021, wherein, it is stated that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted and Form 3 was also issued to the assessee on 19.04.2021 by the Income Tax Department. Stating so, the learned counsel submitted that there is nothing surviving for further adjudication and hence, sought permission of this court to withdraw this appeal. 3. Recording the above submissions and the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee, this writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 13.06.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No psa/av 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. psa/av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle-XIV, Chennai - 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Chennai. Tax Case Appeal No.453 of 2017 13.06.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 4

All 1,145 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →