HEALTH AND GLOW RETAILING PV vs. ASST COMNSR OF IT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee intended to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, the Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The Court directed the appellant/assessee to file Form No.I under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act on or before 28.12.2020. The Competent Authority was directed to process the application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of filing. The appeal was disposed of with a liberty to the assessee to restore it in the event the ultimate decision on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the VVS Act is not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with liberty to restore.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Health and Glow Retailing Private Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning principles of natural justice, reopening of assessment under Section 147, and disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee informed the court of its intention to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VVS Scheme) and was taking steps to file the necessary declaration. The High Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, providing a mechanism for dispute resolution.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order passed without entertaining the adjournment request of the appellant and affording an opportunity of hearing is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be set aside? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the reassessment order passed by the respondent under Section 147 of the Act, although there was no fresh tangible material necessitating the reopening of assessment and it was a case of change of opinion? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts and advances, although they were written off as irrecoverable and therefore allowable as a deduction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? Assessee's contention: The assessee intended to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was taking steps to file the application. The revenue did not record any specific contention in relation to the substantial questions of law as the proceedings were adjourned for the assessee to pursue the VVS Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.477 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.12.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.477 of 2019 Health and Glow Retailing Private Ltd., Bangalore
...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 14.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1784/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : M/s.King & Patridge For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.477 of 2019 order dated 14.2.2019 made in I.T.A.No.1784/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted on 19.7.2019 on the following substantials question of law: “i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order passed without entertaining the adjournment request of the appellant and affording an opportunity of hearing is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be sest aside? ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the reassessment order passed by the respondent under Section 147 of the Act, although there was no fresh tangible material necessitating the reopening of assessment and it was a case of change of opinion? And iii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts and advances, although they were written off as irrecoverable and therefore 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.477 of 2019 allowable as a deducion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?” 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesn, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, on instructions, submits that the assessee intends to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme' for brevity) and in this regard, the assessee is taking steps to file the application/ declaration in Form No.I. 5. 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. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.477 of 2019 6. In terms of the said Act, the assessee has been given an option to put an end to the tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Under Section 2(j) “disputed tax” has been defined. In terms of Section 3, where a declarant means a person, who files a declaration under Section 4 on or before the last date files a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force, the amount payable by the declarant shall be determined in terms of Section 3(a-c) thereunder. 7. The First Proviso to Section 3 states that in case, where an appeal or writ petition or special leave petition is filed by the Income Tax authority on any issue before the Appellate Forum, the amount payable shall be one-half of the amount in the table stipulated in Section 3 calculated on such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The Second Proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Third Proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing of the declaration 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.477 of 2019 is as per Section 4 of the Act and the particulars to be furnished are also mentioned in the Sub-Sections of Section 4. Section 5 of the Act deals with the time and manner of the payment and Section 6 deals with immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases, where the Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. 8. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be 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 Division Bench for orders. 9. In the light of the above, we direct the appellant/assessee to file Form No.I on or before 28.12.2020 and the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date, on which, the declaration is filed in the proper form. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.477 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS 10. With this direction, the tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. 10.12.2020 To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34. T.C.A.No.477 of 2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026