THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHOBANABAI DILLIP KUMAR

TCA.Nos.97 & 99 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.2.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.97 & 99 of 2021

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant in both TCAs Vs Smt.Shobanabai Dilip Kumar ...Respondent in TCA.No.97 of 2021 M/s.Umeshchand Jain & Sons (HUF), Chennai-7 ...Respondent in TCA.No.99 of 2021 APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders respectively (i) dated 01.8.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' SMC Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.2974/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14; and (ii) dated 10.7.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai in ITA.No.3250/Chny/2018 for the assessment 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.97 & 99 of 2021 year 2015-16. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

,J)

These appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the orders respectively (i) dated 01.8.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' SMC Bench, Chennai (for short, the Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.2974/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2013- 14; and (ii) dated 10.7.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai (for short, the Tribunal) in ITA.No.3250/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Assessing officer for re- examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined all the material placed while passing the assessment order? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.97 & 99 of 2021 right in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in the case of Kanhaiyal and Sons (HUF) in ITA No.1849/Chny/2014 Sunil Kumar Lalwani and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani wherein the onus has been shifted to the Revenue with a direction that the Assessing officer is to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and the relation of the assessee if any with that of the promoters and role of inflating of prices etc which exercise had already been done by the AO and the SEBI? 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse especially when the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the time tested principle that the person who asserts a fact has to discharge the initial burden cast upon him to show that the said facts are true and only thereafter the burden would shift to the Department?” 3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue submits that an identical issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.97 & 99 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS party, in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] [reported in (2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180] and the issue has been answered in favour of the Revenue. 5. There is no quarrel over the said proposition. 6. In the light of the said decision, the above tax case appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the Revenue. 16.2.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, both Madras 'C' SMC Bench and Madras 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai. TCA.Nos.97 & 99 of 2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/