H.VINOD KUMAR HUF vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/827/2017HC Madras20 January 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY6 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by filing a declaration. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on the declaration was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, H. Vinod Kumar HUF, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench, dated 08.03.2017. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2008-09. The substantial questions of law framed by the High Court concerned whether the ITAT erred in treating gains on sale of shares as short-term capital gains instead of long-term capital gains by considering the date of dematerialization rather than the purchase date, and whether the ITAT's finding on the genuineness of the sale transaction was perverse. Subsequently, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee informed the court that a declaration had been filed under Section 4 of this Act on 26.12.2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in treating the gains on sale of shares as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains by taking into account the date of dematerialization of shares and not the date of purchase thereof? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of capital gains provisions). 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the sale transaction entered into by the appellant not being genuine, is vitiated by perversity? (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT erred in classifying the gains as short-term capital gains by using the dematerialization date instead of the purchase date. The assessee also contended that the ITAT's finding regarding the genuineness of the sale transaction was perverse. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue in response to the substantial questions of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 H. Vinod Kumar HUF ... Appellant v.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 08.03.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.2349/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi for Mr. N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.827 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 08.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2349/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The appeal was admitted on 06.03.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:- " (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in treating the gains on sale of shares as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains by taking into account the date of dematerializaton of shares and not the date of purchase there of? (ii) Whether the the finding of the Tribunal on the sale transaction entered into by the appellant not being genuine, is vitiated by perversity ?" Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 3.. We have heard Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T. Ravikumar, learned Standing 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 has already filed the declaration on 26.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 6. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.

Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 7. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.) 20.01.2021 3/3 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj To 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2017

20.01.2021 3/3 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 4

All 1,145 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →