Disposed

Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner of

Madras HC20 Jan 2021TCA/826/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Income Tax Appeal seeking substantial questions of law. It found that the appellant had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty to restore it if the department's decision on the declaration is unfavorable.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to restore if the vesting order under the DTDSV Act is unfavorable.

Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Principal Commissioner of — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.01.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017
Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain ... Appellant
v.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶7

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

¶8

1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 08.03.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.2348/Mds/2016.

¶9

For Appellant : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi for Mr. N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel

¶10

Page 1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J)

¶15

This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income

¶16

Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated

¶17

08.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2348/Mds/2016 for

¶18

the Assessment Year 2008-09.

¶19

The appeal was admitted on 06.03.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶20

gains on sale of shares as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains by taking into account the date of dematerializaton of shares and not the date of purchase there of?

¶21

(ii) Whether the the finding of the Tribunal on the sale

¶22

transaction entered into by the appellant not being genuine, is vitiated by perversity ?"

¶23

Page 2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶25

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶26

3.. We have heard Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T. Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.

¶27

It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee

¶31

that the assessee has already filed the declaration on 22.12.2020 under

¶32

Section 4 of the Act.

¶33

Page 3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶36

In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the Registry shall place

¶42

such petition before the Division Bench for orders.

¶43

Page 4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶45

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶46

With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of

¶47

with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial

¶48

Questions of Law are left open. No costs.

¶49

(M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
20.01.2021
2/3
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'B' Bench,
Chennai

¶50

Page 5/6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶52

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017

¶53

M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶54

¶55

Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017
20.01.2021
2/3

¶56

Page 6/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Vs Shri P Damaodaran

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S S.R.a.Systems Ltd.

Birajlata Devei Maheswari Vs the Income-Tax Officer

N. Easwaran Vs the Commissioner of Income

H.Vinod Kumar HUF Vs Principal Commissioner of

H.Vinod Kumar Vs Principal Commissioner of