N. EASWARAN vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

PDF · subscribers
TCA/855/2017HC 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 the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The court was informed that the assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending. The court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the decision by the Department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, N. Easwaran, filed an appeal before the Madras High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee had raised substantial questions of law concerning the Tribunal's adherence to jurisdictional High Court judgments, reliance on retracted confessional statements, and reversal of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. During the pendency of the appeal, 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.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not following the binding judgment of the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), affirmed by the Supreme Court, and instead relying on judgments of other High Courts, thereby violating judicial propriety and discipline. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in acting upon the assessee's retracted confessional statement, which was uncorroborated by tangible material, lacked evidentiary value, and was contrary to CBDT instructions. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in reversing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which had fixed income based on comparable cases, and restoring the Assessing Officer's order that adopted an exaggerated rate of profit. The assessee contended that the Tribunal erred in not following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent and in relying on a retracted confession without corroboration. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 4

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case No.855 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.855 of 2017 N.Easwaran

... Appellant Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated 26.10.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.2117/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Kumar, for Mr.T.N.Seetharaman For Respondent : Ms.G.G.Usha Rani, Standing Counsel, for Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.855 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by T.V. THAMILSELVI, 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 26.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “A” Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2117/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Question of Law for consideration: “ 1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not following the binding judgment of the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT Vs.S.Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) affirmed by the Supreme Court by order in CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and relying on judgments of other High Courts in a manner contrary to judicial propriety and discipline? 2)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in acting on the retracted confessional statement of the appellant, uncorroborated by tangible material, which has no evidentiary value and is also against the CBDT instructions on the subject? 3)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in reversing the fair and reasoned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) fixing the income with reference to comparable cases and restoring the Assessing Officer's order adopting exaggerated Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.855 of 2017 rate of profit?” 2. We have heard Mr.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee and Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/ Revenue. 3. 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. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed the declaration on 07.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. 5. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.855 of 2017 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. 6. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.855 of 2017 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 Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes va To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench 2.Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case No.855 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. va Tax Case Appeal No.855 of 2017

20.01.2021 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 →