M/S.NEW WOODLANDS HOTEL PVT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I

PDF · subscribers
TCA/468/2019HC Madras16 March 2020Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in light of the common order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in M.P.Nos.147 and 148/Chny/2019, which pertained to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, there was nothing further for adjudication in the present Tax Case Appeals. The court accepted the submission of the assessee's counsel and heard the revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous. No costs were awarded. The ratio decidendi is that if subsequent events or orders render an appeal moot, the court will dismiss it as infructuous without deciding the original merits.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by M/s. New Woodlands Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-4(2), Chennai (revenue). The appeals challenged orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 30.01.2019, in ITA Nos. 2508/CHNY/2017 and 2509/CHNY/2017. The assessee's counsel represented that in light of a common order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the ITAT in M.P.Nos.147 and 148/Chny/2019, pertaining to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, nothing remained for further adjudication in these appeals. The revenue's counsel was heard.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed by the assessee against the ITAT's order required further adjudication. The assessee contended that a subsequent order by the ITAT in related miscellaneous petitions for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 rendered the present appeals infructuous, meaning there was no longer a live controversy to be decided. The revenue did not present any counter-argument to this submission, implicitly agreeing that the subsequent order resolved the matters in dispute. The court was therefore not required to delve into the substantive merits of the original dispute that led to the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 11.03.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2019 M/s.New Woodlands Hotel Pvt.Ltd., 71-75, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. .. Appellant in both appeals Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-4(2), Chennai.

.. Respondent in both appeals COMMON PRAYER:- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

''B''

Bench,

Chennai,

dated

30.01.2019

in I.T.A.No.2508/CHNY/2017 and I.T.A.No.2509/CHNY/2017 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2018 For Appellant in both appeals : Mr.G.Baskar For Respondent in both appeals: Mr.Karthick Ranganathan

COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee that in the light of the common order dated 11.12.2019 in M.P.Nos.147 and 148/Chny/2019 pertains to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ''B'' Bench, Chennai, nothing remains for further adjudication in these Tax Case Appeals. 2. Heard the submission of Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent / Revenue also. 3. In the light of the said development, nothing remains for further adjudication in these appeals. In the result, these Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. [M.S.N.,J] [A.Q., J] 11.03.2020 sk Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2018 To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-4(2), Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2018 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J., sk T.C.A.Nos.468 & 469 of 2018 16.03.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →