R.PANNEERSELVAM (INDIVIDUAL) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/537/2017HC Madras12 November 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, a beneficial legislation for the resolution of disputed tax matters. The declarations submitted by the assessee under this Act were accepted, and Form 3 was issued by the Income Tax Department. In light of these developments, the Court deemed it unnecessary to decide the substantial questions of law that arose in the Tax Case Appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties. The Court directed the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the original issues raised by the assessee before the Tribunal were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri R. Panneerselvam, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2004-05. The appeal raised substantial questions of law concerning additions made to the assessee's income. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. These forms were accepted by the Income Tax Department, and Form 3 was issued to the assessee on 27.10.2021. The Revenue conceded to these developments.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to sustain the addition partly on the presumption of sales suppression, establishing perversity in its findings due to misconstruction of details scrutinized by the Respondent and overlooking trade practice? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not considering the grounds challenging the validity of the re-assessment based on survey results, despite the survey results relating to Assessment Year 2008-09? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in sustaining the addition made by extrapolating survey results to the earlier Assessment Year under consideration, even though there were no reasons for presumption of such practice of suppression of sales and it was not backed by any materials unearthed in the survey? The Assessee contended that they had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, with their declarations accepted and Form 3 issued. The Revenue conceded to this submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 4(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.11.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 Shri R.Panneerselvam (Individual) No.43, Sarangapani Street T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. PAN : AAGPP5353K ... Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle II 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, “D” Bench Chennai, dated 01.08.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1077/Mds/2014 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. For Appellant : Mr. S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr. T.Ravikumar Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Assessee, challenging the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal', for brevity) relating to Assessment Year 2004-05, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law to sustain the addition partly on the presumption of sales suppression establishing perversity in their findings consequent to the misconstruction of the details scrutinized by the Respondent while overlooking the trade practice? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in not considering the grounds raised challenging the validity of the re-assessment based on the survey results despite the fact of the survey results related to the Assessment year 2008-09? 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in sustaining the addition made by extrapolating the survey results to the earlier Assessment year which happened to be the Assessment Year under consideration even though there were no reasons for presumption of such practice of suppression of sales and not backed by any materials unearthed in the survey?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 2.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 (1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which were accepted and Form 3 was issued to the assessee on 27.10.2021, by the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel has also filed a memo to that effect. 3.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Revenue. 4.This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, as per which, the assessee has already availed the benefit conferred under the beneficial legislation viz., the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, enacted for resolution of disputed tax and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto, which came into force with effect from 17.03.2020; and the declarations submitted by the assessee were also accepted and Form 3 was also issued to them by the Income Tax Department. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 In view of such development, it is unnecessary for this court to decide the substantial questions of law arisen in this tax case appeal.

5.Therefore, recording the submissions so made by the learned counsel on either side, this appeal stands disposed of, directing the department to process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs.

[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 12.11.2021 Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Maya To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “D” Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle II, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals (Central)-I Chennai. R. MAHADEVAN, J. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No. 537 of 2017 and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya T.C.A.No. 537 of 2017

Dated : 12.11.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 4(1)

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →