S.KALYANKUMAR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

PDF · subscribers
TCA/711/2015HC 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. The court was informed that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been enacted for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee's counsel stated that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessee, S. Kalyankumar, against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras Bench, dated December 12, 2013. These orders pertained to assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. The core of the dispute involved the restoration of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ITAT. The assessee contended that additions were made based on an offer by his father-in-law to avoid litigation, and that sworn statements indicated the income was earned by the father-in-law and invested in the assessee's name. The matter reached the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when sworn statements clearly show that the income was earned by the appellant's father-in-law and invested in the appellant's name? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restoring the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when additions were made solely on the basis of an offer made by the appellant's father-in-law in good faith to avoid litigation? 3. Whether Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable where there was no departmental finding that the assessee was the owner of undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery, or investments, and additions were made only on the basis of an offer by the assessee's father-in-law? Assessee's Contentions: The additions were based on an offer by the father-in-law to avoid litigation, and sworn statements indicated the income belonged to the father-in-law. The applicability of Explanation 5A was questioned in the absence of a departmental finding of undisclosed ownership by the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 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.711 to 715 of 2015 S. Kalyankumar ... Appellant in all the TCAs v.

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

COMMON PRAYER: Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated 12.12.2013 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1990 to 1994/Mds/2012. For Appellant in all the TCAs : Mrs.Sri Niranjani For Respondent in all the TCAs : Mrs.V. Pushpa

Senior Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 of 2015 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) These appeals are filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), are 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.Nos.1990 to 1994/Mds/2012 for the assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005- 2006, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. 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 father-in-law 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 father-in-law 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 of 2015 Department that the assessee was the owner of any money bullion, jewellery or valuable investment etc., not disclosed to the department; but additions were made only on the basis of offer by the assessee's father-in-law?” 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 10.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 15.06.2021

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. gv Tax Case Appeal Nos.711 to 715 of 2015

15.06.2021

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

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 →