M/S. S4 CARLISLE PUBLISHING vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6

PDF · subscribers
TCA/633/2017HC Madras13 June 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the joint submission by the learned counsel for both the appellant (assessee) and the respondent (revenue). They jointly stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the claim of the appellant/assessee was accepted by the assessing officer via an order dated 31.12.2019. This acceptance was in effect of an order passed by the Tribunal on 28.06.2018, which was in the second round of litigation. Given this development, both parties agreed that nothing further survived for adjudication in the present appeal. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal as having become infructuous. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the validity of reopening and the addition under Section 68, and the reasoning behind them, were not discussed by the High Court as the appeal was disposed of on a subsequent event.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. S4 Carlisle Publishing Service P Ltd., filed a tax case appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Chennai. This order pertained to the assessment year 2008-2009. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law on 11.12.2017. During the pendency of the appeal, both the assessee and the revenue jointly submitted that the assessee's claim was accepted by the assessing officer by an order dated 31.12.2019, giving effect to a prior order of the Tribunal dated 28.06.2018 in the second round of litigation. Consequently, no further adjudication was required.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of assessment is valid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the case back to the records of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee regarding these issues. However, by filing the appeal, the assessee implicitly challenged the Tribunal's findings on these points. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue regarding these issues. However, by appearing and making a joint submission, the revenue acknowledged the subsequent developments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No. 633 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A. No.633 of 2017 M/s.S4 Carlisle Publishing Service P Ltd., Prakash Towers, 1st Floor, 141, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. .. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Chennai.

.. Respondent

Appeal filed under Section 260 (A) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Chennai, dated 13.06.2016 in I.T.A No.192/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No. 633 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee, challenging the order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.TA.No.192/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009. 2.By order dated 11.12.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in holding that reopening of assessment is valid? and (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the case back to the records of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act?" 3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides jointly submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the claim of the appellant / assessee was accepted by the assessing officer by order dated 31.12.2019 by giving effect to the order passed by the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No. 633 of 2017 Tribunal 28.06.2018, in the second round of litigation and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication herein. 4. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this tax case appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. [R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 13.06.2022 Internet : Yes

Index : Yes/No av To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Chennai. 3. The Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(1), Chennai. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No. 633 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av TCA No.633 of 2017

13.06.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →