M.Bhagiachand Gulecha vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
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 court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act, and the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi on those points can be extracted. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the assessee, M. Bhagiachand Gulecha, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "C" Bench, dated 28.08.2013, for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-X, Chennai. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted. The assessee's counsel informed the court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide 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? 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 addition should not have been confirmed as the Revenue failed to dislodge the affidavit filed by Mr. Mahadevan with any other material. Furthermore, the assessee argued that the Tribunal's failure to delete the addition despite insufficient opportunity to produce Mr. Mahadevan constituted a violation of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.488 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.488 of 2015 M.Bhagiachand 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.1994/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.488 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.1994/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.488 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.488 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 (3/4)
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.488 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.488 of 2015
01.07.2021 (3/4) Page 5/5
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026