KLAUS DIETER BERGMAN vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF

TCA/773/2016HC Madras05 October 2020Bench: Hon`ble Dr Justice VINEET KOTHARI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the assessee have become infructuous. This decision was based on the submission by the revenue's counsel that subsequent penalty orders had been passed, leading to the dropping of the original penalty that formed the basis of the appeals. The assessee's counsel did not contest this submission. Therefore, the questions of law raised in the appeals were not answered. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Klaus Dieter Bergman, filed appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. These appeals, numbered T.C.A. Nos. 773 to 777 of 2016, arose from original penalty orders. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the assessee's appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the ITAT's decision on penalty orders. The amount in dispute is not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have become infructuous in light of subsequent developments? (Question of law) The revenue contended that fresh penalty orders were passed by the Assessing Authority, resulting in the original penalty in question being dropped by an order dated 11.05.2018. Consequently, the revenue argued that the present appeals, arising from the original penalty order which no longer survives, have become infructuous. The assessee's counsel did not dispute this position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Judgment Dt.05.10.2020 in T.C.A. Nos.773 to 777 of 2016 Klaus Dieter Bergman vs. Asst. Commr of Income Tax IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH T.C.A. Nos.773 to 777 of 2016 Klaus Dieter Bergman, A1, Parsen Sesh Nestle, South West, Nanjundapuram Road, Coimbatore ... Appellant vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Salary Circle, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018 ... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench, dated 22.04.2016in ITA Nos.148 to 152/MDS/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar For respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, submits that in view of the fresh penalty orders passed by the Assessing Authority, by which, the penalty in question has been dropped by order dated 11.05.2018, the present appeals filed by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, arising from the original penalty order, which no longer survives, have 1/2 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment Dt.05.10.2020 in T.C.A. Nos.773 to 777 of 2016 Klaus Dieter Bergman vs. Asst. Commr of Income Tax DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and

M.S.RAMESH, J. (tar) become infructuous. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Assessee does not dispute this position. 2. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed as infructuous and the questions of law raised therein need not be answered. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.17118, 17120, 17122, 17124, 17126 of 2016 are also dismissed. (V.K.,J.) (M.S.R.,J.) 05.10.2020 Index : Yes/No tar To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A. Nos.773 to 777 of 2016 2/2 http://www.judis.nic.in

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →