ANANTHI RABINDRAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/781/2017HC Madras23 February 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law. The Court was informed about the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and that the assessee had received Form-3 under this Act. Based on the assessee's submission and request to withdraw the appeal in light of this development, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Therefore, there is no finding on the merits of the substantial question of law, nor any reasoning or ratio decidendi provided by the High Court on the taxability of the sale of agricultural lands. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Ananthi Rabindran, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench, in ITA No. 1427/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law concerning the tax exemption for surplus generated from the sale of agricultural lands. The Revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 3(1), Chennai. The High Court was informed of the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in artificially imposing the condition of the availability of source for irrigation, despite the classification of the capital asset as agricultural lands in the revenue records, before testing the correctness of the claim of the assessee to tax exemption for the surplus generated from the sale of the said agricultural lands under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 2(14)(iii) of the said Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT erred in imposing an additional condition of irrigation source availability, overlooking the classification of the lands as agricultural in revenue records, when considering the tax exemption claim under Section 45 read with Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on this substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45,Section 2(14)(iii),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 Smt.Ananthi Rabindran 3/6, 13th Avenue, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.

... Appellant Vs.

The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 3(1) Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, dated 22.12.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1426/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1427/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009. The appeal was admitted on 30.01.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in artificially imposing the condition of the availability of source for irrigation, despite the classification of the capital asset as agricultural lands in the revenue records, before testing the correctness of the claim of the assessee to tax exemption for the surplus generated from the sale of the said agricultural lands under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 2(14)(iii) of the said Act?” 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 Question 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. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 22.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 23.02.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench 2.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward – 3(1) Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.781 of 2017

23.02.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 45

All 1,374 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →