Disposed

Durai Sathymurthy v. the Dy Commissioner of Income

Madras HC4 Feb 2021TCA/807/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order disposed of without deciding substantial questions of law. Court held appellant's filing of Form-1 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act renders hearing unnecessary, disposing appeal with liberty to restore if settlement proves unfavorable.

What did the court decide?

Tax Case Appeal disposed of; Department instructed to process Form-1 application; liberty granted to restore appeal if settlement decision is unfavorable.

Durai Sathymurthy Vs the Dy Commissioner of Income — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.807 of 2017

¶5

Durai Sathyamurthy ... Appellant

¶6

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 6(2),

¶7

122, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent

¶8

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai, dated 09.03.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.3028/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13, against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, No.221,121 M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34, ITA.No.153/CIT(A)-15/ 2015-2016 dated of order 29/08/2016 against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 6(2), 7^th Floor Wanaparathy, Block Room No.705, 121 M.G.Road, Chennai -34, PAN.No.AAMPS6003R, assessment year 2012-2013.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.V.S. Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr.J. Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel J U D G M E N T (Judgment was Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J)

¶10

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 09.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.3028/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.

¶11

The e assessee has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:

¶12

" (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in its interpretation of Section 45 read with Section 48 to hold that the sum of Rs.25 lakhs representing the expenditure for the purpose of improvement of the land is not allowable even though the same is covered by terms of the MOU entered into between the parties? and

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its conclusion which are based on perverse findings of facts which amounts to mere suspicion, surmise and conjecture ?"

¶15

We have heard V.S. Jayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶16

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 17^th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17^th March 2020.

¶17

We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed the requisite Form - 1 on 23.01.2021 under Section 4 of the Act.

¶18

. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit 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 requisite Form - 1 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.

¶19

With these observations, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai "B" Bench .
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle - 6(2),
122, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),
Chennai.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai.
Copy to : The Sub-Assistant Registrar, A.E.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai-104.
+1cc to M/s.V.S.Jayakumar, Advocate SR.No.6003
akm/5.3.21 /3p-7c/
Tax Case Appeal No.807 of 2017
04.02.2021

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Durai Sathymurthy v. the Dy Commissioner of Income

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durai Sathymurthy v. the Dy Commissioner of Income

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Vs Celebrity Fashions Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Elgi Equipments

The Commissioner of Income- Vs Tuticorin Port Trust

Shri.N.Rajasekaran Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S.Avm Film Studios Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S.Avm Film Studios Vs Income Tax Officer