TAMIL NADU STEEL TUBES LTD., vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the submission of the appellant's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and remitted the tax due. The appellant provided Form 3 dated 07.01.2021 and proof of payment. Based on these submissions and documents, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court, recording these submissions, dismissed the tax case appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were given on the substantial questions of law as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The appellant, M/s. Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1999-2000. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law by an order dated 06.06.2019. Subsequently, the assessee informed the court that it had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and remitted the tax due. The assessee produced Form 3 dated 07.01.2021 and proof of tax payment, requesting to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
The High Court had admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in allowing proceedings under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee submitting all particulars? 2. Whether the ITAT was right in allowing the assessment after a lapse of 2 years when the original assessment was cancelled or set aside under Section 254? 3. Whether the ITAT was right in accepting a Corrigendum Notice without issuing a valid notice under Section 148 for re-assessment? 4. Whether the ITAT was right in directing the respondent to issue a fresh notice after the expiry of the limitation period of 6 years for re-assessment? 5. Whether the ITAT was right in curing a jurisdictional notice under Section 292B when no notice was issued for the Assessment Year 1999-2000? 6. Whether the ITAT was right in accepting the re-assessment order without issuing a valid notice for re-assessment after 6 years of limitation? The assessee argued that it had availed the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and paid the tax due, hence sought to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not record any arguments in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 254,Section 148,Section 292B,Section 260A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.606 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD TCA.No.606 of 2018 M/s. Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Ltd., Mercury Apartments, First Floor, 65, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ... Appellant
Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income - Tax, Company Circle III (1), Chennai. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'SMC' “C” Bench, Chennai, dated 05.07.2017 in I.TA.No.63/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Shankar For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.V.Pushpa, Junior Standing Counsel 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.606 of 2018 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) Based on the letter dated 07.03.2022 sent by the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee to the Registry, this appeal is listed today under the caption “for withdrawal”. 2.This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee, challenging the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'SMC' 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.63/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 1999-2000. 3.By order dated 06.06.2019, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing proceedings as per Section 68 even though all the particulars are submitted by the assessee? (ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right to allow the assessment even after lapse of 2 years where original assessment was cancelled or set aside under Section 254 (ITAT)? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law by accepting a Corrigendum Notice 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.606 of 2018 without issuing a valid notice under Section 148 for the re- assessment? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law by directing the respondent to issue a fresh notice after the expiry of the limitation period of 6 years for re-assessment? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above he Tribunal is right in law to cure the jurisdictional notice under Section 292B even though there is no notice is issued for the Assessment Year 1999-2000? (vi) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right by accepting the re-assessment order without issuing a valid notice for the re-assessment after 6 years of Limitation? 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the appellant / assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and remitted the tax due thereon. In support of the same, he has produced a copy of Form 3 dated 07.01.2021 issued by the Income Tax Department and also proof for payment of tax due. Stating so, the learned counsel sought permission of this court to withdraw this appeal. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.606 of 2018 5.Recording the submissions and the documents so filed on the side of the appellant, this tax case appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 11.03.2022
Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'SMC' “C” Bench, Chennai, 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income - Tax, Company Circle III (1), Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Chennai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.606 of 2018 R. MAHADEVAN,
and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
, J.
av TCA.No.606 of 2018 11.03.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026