PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY

PDF · subscribers
TCA/90/2017HC Madras29 July 2020Bench: Hon`ble Dr Justice VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous. This was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that a fresh assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had been passed by the Assessing Authority on 26.10.2016, in compliance with the remand order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Since the purpose of the appeal was to challenge the ITAT's order which led to a remand, and a subsequent assessment order has now been passed, the appeal before the High Court was rendered moot. The assessee did not oppose this submission. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Tax Case Appeal (TCA No. 90 of 2017) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenged an order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras “C” Bench, in ITA.No.1810/Mds/2016. The assessment year in question is 2012-13. The ITAT's order had apparently resulted in a remand to the Assessing Authority. The Revenue's counsel informed the High Court that a fresh assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had been passed by the Assessing Authority on 26.10.2016, pursuant to the ITAT's remand order. The assessee, M/s.S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy, did not object to this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous due to the subsequent passing of a fresh assessment order by the Assessing Authority for the Assessment Year 2012-13, pursuant to the ITAT's remand order? (Question of fact and law) The Revenue contended that a fresh assessment order for AY 2012-13 was passed on 26.10.2016 in pursuance of the impugned remand order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. The Revenue relied on the fact of the subsequent assessment order being passed. The assessee, through its Senior Counsel, had no objection to the Revenue's submission regarding the appeal becoming infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order dt.29.7.2020 in TCA No.90 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.90 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy, 84, Jeevaantham Street, Kollampalayam, Erode 638 002.

.. Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “C” Bench, dated 29.06.2016 in ITA.No.1810/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T.R. Senthilkumar Sr. Standing Counsel M/s.K.G. Usharani, Jr. Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.R.C. Ramani Sr. Counsel for Mr. B. Raveendran

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.7.2020 in TCA No.90 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J.) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences.

2.

Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that a fresh assessment order, in pursuance of the impugned remand order of the learned Tribunal, has been passed by the Assessing Authority on 26.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous.

3.

Mr. R.L.Ramani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee has no objection for the same. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.7.2020 in TCA No.90 of 2017 4. Accordingly, the present Tax Case Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. [V.K.,J.] [K.R.,J.] 29.07.2020 msr Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “C” Bench, Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.7.2020 in TCA No.90 of 2017 DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. & KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.

Msr

T.C.A.No.90 of 2017 29.07.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →