M.BABULAL GULECHA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

TCA/486/2015HC Madras01 July 2021Bench: THE 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 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 with Form-3 under the said Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/-, the evidentiary value of the sale agreement and bank statement, the affidavit of Mr. Mahadevan, and the principles of natural justice were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M. Babulal Gulecha, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 28.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "C" Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07 and challenges an addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the Revenue. The ITAT had confirmed this addition. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. During the pendency of the appeal, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee informed the court that they had received Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct, in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- in the face of sale agreement and bank statement evidencing the bona fide of the transaction? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition although the affidavit filed by Mr. Mahadevan had not been dislodged by the officer with any other relevant material? (Question of law) 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct, in law, in not deleting the addition although the lack of sufficient opportunity to produce him amounts to violation of natural justice? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was incorrect given the sale agreement and bank statement supporting the transaction's bona fides. The assessee also contended that the ITAT's decision was unjustified as the Revenue had not dislodged the affidavit filed by Mr. Mahadevan with any other material. Furthermore, the assessee argued that the Tribunal's failure to delete the addition, despite a lack of sufficient opportunity to produce Mr. Mahadevan, constituted a violation of natural justice. 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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 M.Babulal Gulecha No.390/2, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

... Appellant Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-X, Chennai. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, dated 28.08.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.1993/Mds/2011. For Appellant : Mr.T.Vasudevan For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar

Senior Standing Counsel and Mrs.R.Hemalatha Standing Counsel Page 1/5 Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 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 dated 28.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1993/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07. The above appeal has been admitted on 25.08.2015 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct, in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- in the face of sale agreement and bank statement evidencing the bona fide of the transaction? 2.Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition although the affidavit filed by Mr.Mahadevan had not been dislodged by the officer with any other relevant material? 3.Whether the Tribunal was correct, in law, in not deleting the addition although the lack of sufficient opportunity to produce him amounts to violation of natural justice?” Page 2/5 Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 2. We have heard Mr.T.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. 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. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 18.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. Page 3/5 Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 5. 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.] [R.H., J.] 01.07.2021 (1/4)

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-X, Chennai. Page 4/5 Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.486 of 2015

01.07.2021 (1/4) Page 5/5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →