MARY ZACHARIAH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/821/2016HC Madras17 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 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 assessee informed the Court that Form – 3 had been issued on 21.01.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi or operative directions were issued by the High Court on the tax dispute itself. The issue of exemption under Section 54F and the applicability of V.R.Karpagam were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mary Zachariah, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the eligibility for exemption under Section 54F for investment in residential units. The dispute revolved around whether investment in three residential units, two of which were in a different block from the main unit, qualified for the exemption. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was admitted on 29.11.2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Section 54F for investment in three residential units in the same complex on the ground that two of the units are in a different block? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ratio of the decision in the case of V.R.Karpagam is not applicable to the appellant, as the servants quarters were situated in a different block from the main residential unit? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in denying the exemption under Section 54F. The assessee relied on the decision in V.R.Karpagam. The specific arguments regarding the units being in a different block are implied by the questions of law. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 Mary Zachariah

... Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle – 15, 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, Madras "C" Bench, dated 10.06.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.416/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Arun Joseph, for M/s.J.Sree Vidya For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan,

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 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 10.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.416/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. On 29.11.2016, the appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Section 54F for investment in three residential units in the same complex on the ground that two of the units are in a different block? 2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ration of the decision in the case of V.R.Karpagam is not applicable to the appellant, as the servants quarters were situated in a different block from the main residential unit?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 2. We have heard Mr.Arun Joseph, 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 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 has already been issued with Form – 3 on 21.01.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 5. 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.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 17.02.2021

Internet : Yes

va To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle – 15, Chennai – 600 034. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. va Tax Case Appeal No.821 of 2016

17.02.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →