Madras High Court
Hari Poddar & Others vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 20 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.6565 & 6567 of 2018
Hari Poddar & Others
L/H of Smt.Prathiba Poddar
32, Ottukkaa Chinniah Street,
Erode – 638 003. ... Appellant
in all appeals
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle – IV,
Coimbatore. ... Respondent
in all appeals
Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.346 to 348 of 2018 filed under
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, dated 24.05.2017
passed in I.T.(SS) A.No.164/Mds/2005, I.T.(SS) A.No.170/Mds/2005
and C.O.No.37 of 2006 in I.T.(SS) A.No.170/Mds/2005 respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
in all appeals
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
in all appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
The above appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), are directed against the
order dated 24.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.(SS)
A.No.164/Mds/2005, I.T.(SS) A.No.170/Mds/2005 and C.O.No.37 of
2006 in I.T.(SS) A.No.170/Mds/2005 for the Block Period 1997-98 to
2003-04 (upto 08.08.2002).
2.The appellant/assessee has raised the following substantial
questions of law in the above appeals :
T.C.A.No.346 of 2018 :
“1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law holding that the block assessment order passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
on 21.10.2004 is within time limit as prescribed in
Explanation 2 to Section 158BE(1)(b) of the Income Tax
Act 1961 without appreciating that the last Panchanama in
respect of execution of relevant of warrant of authorization
was drawn on 08.08.2002 and not on 01.10.2002?
2.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in following
the judgment in the case of VLS Finance Ltd. v. CIT [384
ITR 1 (SC)] which has no application to the facts of the
present case?
3.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding
that block assessment is not barred by limitation without
appreciating that in the present case, there was no
subsequent search at all and only Panchanamas were
prepared subsequently and that too, regarding the lifting of
prohibitory orders?
4.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the Panchanama drawn on
01.10.2002 (in the case of Hari Poddar the last
Panchanama was drawn on 3.10.2002) in respect of all
three assessees consequent to physical seizure of the hard
disk on the basis of the main warrant issued by the D.I.T.
Chennai has to be treated as Last Panchanama and
therefore, the assessment order passed on 21.10.2004 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
within two years from the end of the month in which the last
Panchanama was drawn?
5.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding
that the last Panchanama was drawn in relation to the
appellant on 01.10.2002 and thereby upholding the block
assessment without deciding on the legality of the
conclusion of search with reference to the Panchanama
dated 01.10.2002?
6.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in
law in sustaining the following – addition of Rs.61.00
Lakhs as undisclosed bank account, addition of Rs.10.27
Lakhs on account of unaccounted purchases, addition of
Rs.22.55 Lakhs on account of profit from Vigneswara
Traders?”
T.C.A.No.347 and 348 of 2018 :
“1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in restoring the addition of Rs.10.27 Lakhs on
account of unaccounted purchases without appreciating the
fact that these amounts were received from the parties for
supply of goods and hence it could not be treated as cash
credit for the purpose of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,
1961?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
2.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in restoring the addition of Rs.22.55 Lakhs on
account of profit from Vigneswara Traders without
appreciating that the appellant had maintained accounts
with Vigneswara Traders in the regular course of its
business even before the date of search and advance tax
was also paid in discharge of the income tax liability in the
assessment year 2002-03 including profits from this
business?
3.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in restoring the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores on
account of unexplained cash credits as cash credits under
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without
appreciating that this amount was recorded in the books of
account regularly maintained by the appellant and that
these amounts were received from the parties for supply of
goods and hence it could not be treated as unexplained
credits under Section 68 of the Act?
4.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding
that u/s.68 of the Act entire unexplained credit to be
considered as income of the assessee and there is no
question of estimation of GP on unexplained credit so as to
determine the undisclosed income?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya
Aiyar Padamanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee and
Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent/Revenue.
4. 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 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
24.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the above appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee, the above Tax Case Appeals stand dismissed as
withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
20.04.2021
(2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle – IV,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/8
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal Nos.346 to 348 of 2018
20.04.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/8
