JAYAPAL SRIRAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and recording the memo filed by the appellant, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the appellant had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme and Act, 2020, and had settled all tax dues, leading to the preference to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, no costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the original appeal or any specific issue that was decided by the ITAT.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Sri Jayapal Sriram, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenged an order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.47/CHNY/2018, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. The respondent was the Commissioner of Income Tax Authority. The appeal was listed for withdrawal based on a memo submitted by the appellant's counsel.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be withdrawn by the appellant. Assessee's Contention: The appellant submitted a memo stating their intention to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in accordance with the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme and Act, 2020, as per notification No.CG-DL-E-17032020-218716 dated 17.03.2020. The appellant asserted that they had opted for this scheme and settled all their tax dues, thus preferring to withdraw the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.3527 of 2020 Sri Jayapal Sriram ... Appellant
vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XIII(4), 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034 ... Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.47/CHNY/2018 dated 19.11.2019. **** For Appellant : Mr.MA.Gouthaman For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.S.Premalatha, Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 JUDGMENT PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. Today, this appeal is listed under the caption “For Withdrawal” based on the memo dated 19.02.2021 submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also sought permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal. The said Memo is extracted hereunder: “1. The Appellant herein has preferred the present Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenging the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'), 'B' Bench, Chennai in ITA No.47/CHNY/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (“AY”). 2. The Appellant herein most humbly submits that as per the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme and Act, 2020, the appellant herein has preferred to opt for the above mentioned scheme as stipulated vide the notification No.CG-DL-E-17032020-218716 dated 17.03.2020 and through the same act the appellant herein has settled all of his tax dues and thus the appellant 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 herein prefers to withdraw the appeal”. 2. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and recording the memo, the Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [P.S.N., J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 28.10.2021 Index : Yes/No srn Registry is directed to upload the order copy today itself. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. To The Commissioner of Income Tax Authority, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Business Ward XIII(4), 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034 T.C.A.No.87 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.3527 of 2020 28.10.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026