G. MURALIDHARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
TCA/495/2017HC Madras08 January 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial question of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the assessee's filing of a declaration under Section 4 of the Act. Given that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Act, the court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had filed a declaration. The court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left undecided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with liberty to restore, and the Department was directed to process the application under the Act at the earliest.

What were the facts?

The assessee, G. Muralidharan, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2008-09. The dispute involved a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard the appeal. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that the Government of India had enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, to resolve disputed tax matters. The assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of this Act on 23.10.2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is valid? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel argued that the appeal should be disposed of in light of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, as the assessee had filed a declaration under the Act. The assessee sought to safeguard their interest in case the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. Revenue's Contention: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue regarding the substantial question of law. The revenue's counsel appeared and was heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case No.495 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.495 of 2017 G. Muralidharan ... Appellant v.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Pondicherry), 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, Chennai, dated 27.04.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1197/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr. N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T.R. Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.495 of 2017 (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 27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1197/Mds/2015. for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Question of Law for consideration: " Whether in fact and the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the the Income Tax Act, is valid. ?" 2.. We have heard Mr. N.V. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Question of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.495 of 2017 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 has already filed the declaration on 23.10.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 5. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.495 of 2017 appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration 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.

6.

With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.) 08.01.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj To The Commissioner of Income Tax (Pondicherry), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.495 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.495 of 2017

08.01.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →