M.Bhagiachand Gulecha vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/489/2015HC 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. It noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was informed by the assessee's counsel that Form-3 had been issued under this Act. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this request, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the substantial questions of law, and the issue of whether the ITAT order was correct was not adjudicated upon. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M.Bhagiachand Gulecha, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated December 30, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "C" Bench. This order was in relation to Miscellaneous Petition No. 181/Mds/2013 in I.T.A. No. 1994/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee informed the court that Form-3 had been issued 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 the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition without considering the specific plea raised and deciding it on an extraneous issue? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner sought a review of the order when the plea for an opportunity remained unanswered? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not deleting the addition when the lack of sufficient opportunity to produce the assessee amounted to a violation of natural justice? The assessee contended that the ITAT wrongly dismissed their miscellaneous petition, failed to address their plea for an opportunity, and violated natural justice by not deleting an addition without providing sufficient opportunity. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.489 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.489 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 30.12.2013 passed in M.P.No.181/Mds/2013 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.489 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 30.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in M.P.No.181/Mds/2013 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 the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition without considering the specific plea raised in the petition and deciding it on an extraneous issue? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner seeks review of the order while the plea for an opportunity remains unanswered? 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.489 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.489 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 (4/4)

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.489 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.489 of 2015

01.07.2021 (4/4) Page 5/5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →