Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Rattha Holding Company Pvt. ... on 21 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
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.355 of 2020
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Rattha Holding Company Pvt. Ltd.,
6th Floor, Tower-C, Tek Meadows,
No.51, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur, Chennai – 600 119. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"D" Bench, dated 24.05.2019 passed in I.T.A.No.1016/Chny/2017.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1016/Chny/2017 for
the assessment year 2013-14. The above appeal has been admitted on
07.10.2020 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
"1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of bad
debts without considering the fact that the amounts paid
were in the nature of advances and not a debt in the first
instance?
2.Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal
is proper in allowing the claim of bad debts especially when
the assessee had not satisfied the conditions prescribed
under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act? And
3.Whether the Tribunal ought to have applied the
ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
A.V.Thomas and Co.Ltd. [reported in 48 ITR 67] and that of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. [reported in 79 ITR 514], which
has clearly held that before a debt can become bad or
doubtful, it should be first a debt, which is not in the case on
hand?”
2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/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.
4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue
submitted that the respondent/assessee had availed the Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme and that the respondent/assessee had already been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
issued with Form–3 vide Reference No.223709130220121.
5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,
nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the
submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant/Revenue, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [K.R., J.]
21.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "D" Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.355 of 2020
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
