VIDYA REDDY vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. If restoration was sought, the Registry was instructed to entertain the petition without insisting on a delay condonation application. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open, and no decision was made on the merits of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Mrs. Vidya Reddy, represented by her Power of Attorney holder, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2014-15. The substantial questions of law admitted by the High Court relate to the exemption under Section 10(38), the applicability of Section 68, adherence to judicial discipline by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal's discretion in not restoring the matter for further hearing. The Revenue is the respondent. The procedural history involves the Tribunal's order being challenged before the High Court.
What were the issues?
The High Court admitted the appeal on four substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs.45,79,550/- is not exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of Section 68 are attracted when the assessee had fully discharged the onus of proof? 3. Whether the Tribunal failed to adhere to judicial discipline by ignoring orders of co-ordinate Benches of Kolkata and Madras where identical transactions were accepted or remanded? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in not exercising its discretion to restore the matter to lower authorities for hearing regarding material gathered behind the assessee's back? The assessee contended that the Tribunal erred on all these points. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue on these issues, other than their appearance through counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.827 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.827 of 2018 Mrs.Vidya Reddy, Represented by Power of Attorney holder, Mr.V.K.Jhaver, 18/19/Bawa Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. ...Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 1(2), 121, Uttmar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.05.2018 made in ITA.No.2016/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2014-15. For Appellant: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.827 of 2018 JUDGMENT (Delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J
) This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 15.05.2018 made in ITA.No.2016/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appeal was admitted on 23.11.2019 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs.45,79,550/- is not exempt under Sec 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred on holding that the provisions of Sec 68 are attracted in the instant case when the assessee has fully discharged the onus of proof? 3. Whether the Tribunal is not correct in not adhering to the judicial discipline by ignoring orders of the Co-ordinate Benches of Kolkata benches and also the Madras benches where the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.827 of 2018 identical transaction has been accepted and in some cases remanded back to the assessing officer for further investigation? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in not exercising its discretion to restore the matter to the files of the lower authorities to give opportunity of being heard in respect of the material gathered behind the back of the assessee which have no live nexus or casual connection with the appellant?" 3. We have heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submits that the assessee has already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.827 of 2018 expeditiously as possible. 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 appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 29.03.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.827 of 2018 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 1(2), 121, Uttmar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.827 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk TCA.No.827 of 2018 29.03.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 10(38)
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Karan Dilipkumar Patel L/H of Late… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi…ITA 353/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Jay Patel, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-3(1), RaipurITA 684/RPR/2026[2015-16]Status: Heard12 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026