SMT.S.GOWRI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

PDF · subscribers
TCA/708/2015HC Madras15 June 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 subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act, and the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this judgment regarding those specific legal points. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, S. Gowri, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated December 12, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'A' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2006-2007. The substantial questions of law framed for consideration by the High Court related to the Tribunal's decision to restore penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court was informed that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and consequently, sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when sworn statements indicated the income was earned by the appellant's husband and invested in her name? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c)) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when additions were made solely based on an offer made by the appellant's husband in good faith to avoid litigation? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 271(1)(c)) 3. Whether Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable where there was no departmental finding that the assessee owned undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery, or other investments, and additions were made only on the basis of the husband's offer? (Question of law, concerning Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 5A) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not have been restored by the Tribunal, citing that income was earned by the husband and invested in the assessee's name, and that additions were based on the husband's offer to avoid litigation. The applicability of Explanation 5A was also questioned in the absence of a direct finding of undisclosed assets owned by the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Tax Case Appeal Nos.708 of 2015 S. Gowri ... Appellant v.

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 (2). Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras

"A"

Bench,

dated

12.12.2013

passed

in I.T.A.No.1976/Mds/2012. For Appellant : Mrs.Sri Niranjani For Respondent : Mrs.V. Pushpa

Senior Counsel Page 1/5 Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)

This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1976/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2006-2007. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under Sec.271(1) (c ), when the sworn statements recorded clearly show that the income was earned by the appellant's husband and invested in the name of the appellant? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under S.271(1) (c ), when the additions had been made only on the basis of the offer made by the appellant's husband in good faith and to avoid litigation? 3. Whether Explanation 5A to Sec.271(1) (c ) is applicable to a situation where there was no finding by the Page 2/5 Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 Department that the assessee was the owner of any money bullion, jewellery or other valuable investment etc., not disclosed to the Department; but additions were made only on the basis of offer by the assessee's husband?” 3. We have heard Mrs.Sri Niranjani, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions 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 President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 09.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of Page 3/5 Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 15.06.2021 (2/2)

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes gv To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench. 2.Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 (2). Chennai - 600 034. Page 4/5 Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. gv Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2015 15.06.2021 (2/2) Page 5/5

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →