THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SMT SARITA SARAF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Declarations were filed and accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on 07.12.2021. Both the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the learned counsel for the respondent (assessee) fairly conceded to this subsequent development. Consequently, the High Court was of the opinion that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both parties. No costs were awarded. The specific substantial questions of law admitted earlier were not decided on merits due to the settlement.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2014-2015 and concerned the assessee, Smt. Sarita Saraf. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the assessee availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by filing necessary declarations which were accepted, and a Form 5 order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued by the Income Tax Department on 07.12.2021. This subsequent development was confirmed by both the Revenue and the assessee.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order for re-examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined all materials. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer, shifting the onus to the Revenue to prove the assessee's role in promoting the company, their relation with promoters, and price inflation, when such exercise had already been done by the Assessing Officer and SEBI. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse, being contrary to the principle that the party asserting a fact bears the initial burden of proof, which then shifts to the Department. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had already conducted a thorough examination. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly recorded, but the Tribunal's decision, which the Revenue challenged, involved remitting the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue relied on the principle of burden of proof. The Tribunal's decision was based on the case of Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Versus Smt Sarita Saraf (Director M/s. Pondicherry Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd), No.1B, 28/121, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. PAN: ALJPS 3247F ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.3247/Chny/2018. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, relating to the assessment year 2014-2015. 2.By order dated 16.02.2021, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Assessing Officer for re- examination especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined all the material placed while passing the assessment order? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in the case of Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 wherein the onus has been shifted to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing Officer is to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relation of the assessee if any with that of the promoters and role of inflating prices etc, which exercise had already been done by the Assessing Officer and the SEBI? And (iii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse especially when the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the time tested principle that the person who asserts a fact has to discharge the initial burden cast upon him to show that the said facts are true and only thereafter the burden would shift to the Department?" 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 07.12.2021. The learned Senior Standing Counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 07.12.2021 to that effect. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 5.In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 30.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No msr/av Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 5(2), Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av Tax Case Appeal No.58 of 2021
30.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026