SMT DEVYANI DILIP PATEL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/818/2017HC Madras29 July 2020Bench: Hon`ble Dr Justice VINEET KOTHARI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the assessee's counsel that the appeal was against a remand order by the ITAT and the matter was still pending before the lower authorities. Since the proceedings were ongoing and the appeal was against an intermediate order, the High Court found no necessity to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The Revenue's counsel did not oppose this view. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. The principle derived is that an appeal against a remand order, where proceedings are still pending before lower authorities, can be dismissed as infructuous if both parties agree.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Devyani Dilip Patel, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 26.4.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras ‘A’ Bench. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was directed against a remand order passed by the ITAT and that the matter was still pending before the lower authorities. Consequently, the assessee's counsel stated that the present appeal had become infructuous. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal has become infructuous, given that it is directed against a remand order from the ITAT and the matter is pending before lower authorities? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeal had become infructuous because it was filed against a remand order by the ITAT, and the proceedings were ongoing at the lower levels. Therefore, the High Court's intervention at this stage was no longer necessary or relevant. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the assessee's submission that the appeal had become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’

Order dt 29.7.2020 in TCA 818/2017 Devyani Dilip Patel v . ITO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.7.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.818 of 2017 Smt. Devyani Dilip Patel Appellant vs The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XV(3) Chennai- 34 Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘A’ Bench dated 26.4.2017 in I.T.A.No.3218/Mds/2016. For Appellant

: Ms.T.C.A.Sangeetha For Respondent : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 29.7.2020 in TCA 818/2017 Devyani Dilip Patel v . ITO 2 ORDER (Made by Dr.Vineet Kothari,J) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. 2. The learned counsel Ms.T.C.A.Sangeetha appearing for the Appellant/Assessee submits that this Appeal is directed against the remand order passed by the learned Tribunal and the matter is pending before the lower Authorities. She submits that the present Appeal has become infructuous. 3. The learned Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.R.Hemalatha appearing for the Respondent/Revenue has no objection. 4. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. (V.K.J.) (K.R.,J.) 29.7.2020 Ssk/kpl Index:Yes/No Intrnet:Yes/No To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Madras 2. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XV(3) Chennai- 34 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt 29.7.2020 in TCA 818/2017 Devyani Dilip Patel v . ITO 3 Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. ssk. T.C.A.No.818 of 2017 29.7.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →