SMT.S.KAVITHAA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
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 by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act, indicating a resolution of the disputed tax. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the penalty under Section 271AA were not reviewed or adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Smt. S. Kavithaa, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "A" Bench, for the assessment year 2009-2010. The appeal was admitted on 23.07.2015. The dispute pertains to the restoration of penalty under Section 271AA by the ITAT. The assessee's counsel informed the High Court that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, 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 right in restoring penalty under Section 271AA when the sworn statements recorded clearly show that the income was earned by the appellant's husband and invested in the name of the appellant? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under Section 271AA, when the additions had been made only on the basis of the offer made by the appellant's husband in good faith and to avoid litigation and the tax has been paid in full? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the sworn statements indicated the income belonged to the husband and was invested in the assessee's name. Furthermore, additions were based on the husband's offer made in good faith to avoid litigation, and the tax had been paid in full. The assessee sought to question the Tribunal's decision to restore the penalty under Section 271AA on these grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue regarding the restoration of the penalty under Section 271AA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2015 Smt.S.Kavithaa
... Appellant Vs.
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – I (2), Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated 12.12.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.2282/Mds/2012. For Appellant : Mrs.S.Kavitha for M/s.J.Sree Vidhya For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.527 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 12.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2282/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. The above appeal has been admitted on 23.07.2015 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in restoring penalty under Section 271AA when the sworn statements recorded clearly show that the income was earned by the appellant's husband and invested in the name of the appellant?” ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under Section 271AA, when the additions had been made only on the basis of the offer made by the appellant's husband in good faith and to avoid litigation and the tax has been paid in full?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2015 2. We have heard Mrs.S.Kavitha for M/s.J.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior 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 10.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.527 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.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 24.02.2021 Internet : Yes
mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – I (2), Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.527 of 2015
24.02.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 271AA
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Concept Medical Research Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), SuratITTPA 1/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Sasa Stone Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle6(1)(1), Bmtc Building…ITA 1598/BANG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Sasa Stone Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Bmtc Building…ITA 1597/BANG/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Bbc Global News India Private Limited, New… vs DCIT, Central Circle-8, New DelhiITA 4460/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026