PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SELVA GOLD COVERING PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/572/2017HC Madras23 February 2021Bench: 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 framed for consideration. This was due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on December 16, 2020. Recording this submission, the High Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law concerning the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the reliance on Supreme Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench. The ITAT's order, dated March 29, 2017, pertained to ITA.No.3262/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on December 7, 2017, on two substantial questions of law. However, the High Court did not proceed to decide these questions due to subsequent developments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering that the assessee filed a revised return of income only after a survey action under Section 133A was conducted at their business premises? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty by relying on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Reliance Petro Products v. CIT, when a later Supreme Court judgment in 2013, in MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT, had held that voluntary disclosure does not exempt an assessee from penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and had been issued Form-3 on December 16, 2020. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable as the revised return was filed post-survey, and that the Tribunal erred in relying on an older Supreme Court judgment when a later one addressed the issue of voluntary disclosures in the context of penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 133A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.

... Appellant v.

M/s. Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Shri S. Sridhar, Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate, New No.14, Old NO.82, Flat No.5, 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. PAN : AAD CS 0688 Q ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai dated 29.03.2017 passed in ITA.No.3262/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017 For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel Asst. by Ms. K.G. Usha Rani

For Respondent : Mr.M. Kaushik for Mr. S. Sridhar

J U D G M E N T (Judgment was Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I..TA.No.3262/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The appeal was admitted on 07.12.2017 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “ (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) without considering that the assessee filed the revised return of Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017 income only after the survey action under section 133A taken place in the business premises of the assessee? and (ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting the penalty relying on the earlier decision (2010) of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products v. CIT when latter (2013) judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd., v. CIT had clearly held that 'voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c()?" .3. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. 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 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 Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017 President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the respondent-assessee had already been issued with Form – 3 on 16.12.2020.

6.

Since the respondent-assessee had been issued with Form 3, nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 23.02.2021 Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes Rj To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017

M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017

23.02.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →