Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Vigneshwara Foundry vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 23 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos.1935 of 2016 & 7383 of 2019
M/s.Sri Vigneshwara Foundry
A-1095, Near Lakshmi Mills Co.,
Avinashi Road, P.N.Palayam,
Coimbatore – 641 037. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-111,
Coimbatore. ... 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 05.03.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.2010/Mds/2014,
Assessment Year 2010-11.
For Appellant : Mr.N.S.Nandakumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
and Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
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 05.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2010/Mds/2014 for
the assessment year 2010-11. The above appeal was admitted on
22.02.2016 on the following Substantial Questions of Law in the above
appeal:
"1.Whether the Assessing Officer wholly disallowed
payments, when evidence has been given by many persons
receiving the same, admitting to such receipt merely on
the fact that some of the workmen denied receipt of such
payment, is perverse?
2.Whether a finding that a document relied upon by
the assessee as an evidence of an agreement is invalid, is
sufficient for the Assessing Officer to conclude that
payments have not been made especially when, the factum
of payment if seen independently, there are other evidence
to prove the same, is perverse? and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
3.Whether the Tribunal erred in uploading the
orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and
the Assessing Officer based upon evidence of witnesses,
who were not cross examined?”
2. We have heard Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel and Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, learned 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.116 of 2016
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on
28.12.2020 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.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.D., J.] [K.R., J.]
23.04.2021
mkn (2/2)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "C" Bench
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-111,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.116 of 2016
23.04.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
