Madras High Court
M/S.Peacock Chennai Finvest ... vs Income Tax Officer on 21 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
M/s.Peacock Chennai Finvest Products Pvt. Ltd.,
No.45, Pandian Street,
Sankaran Avenue, Velachery,
Chennai – 600 042. ... Appellant
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Company Ward -5(1),
121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, dated 25.01.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.2000/Mds/2016,
Assessment Year 2007-08.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn
For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
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 25.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2000/Mds/2016 for
the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant/assessee has raised the
following Substantial Questions of Law in the above appeal :
"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was justified in not quashing the
assessment order dated 24.12.2014 u/s. 143(3) r/w. 147
based on the show-cause notice dated 18.12.2014,
requiring the assessee to appear on 22.12.2014?
2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was justified in not quashing the
assessment order u/s.143(3) r/w. 147 dated 24.12.2014
after the return was accepted u/s.143(1)(a) on
30.10.2007?
3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the order of the Tribunal was sustainable in law
as well as on the facts, especially in the contact of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
agreement, in holding that the provisions of Sec.2(22)(e)
are attracted in the light of Madras High Court decision
in CIT vs. Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan's case followed
by the CIT(A)?”
2. We have heard Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
3. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-5 on
08.04.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [K.R., J.]
21.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench
2.The Income Tax Officer,
Company Ward -5(1),
121, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.263 of 2017
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
