Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income vs M/S.Praveen Kumar Otmalji on 1 April, 2021
TCA.No.190 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.4.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.190 of 2020
The Commissioner of Income
Tax, Chennai ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Praveen Kumar Otmalji
(HUF) ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.3143/Chny/
2018 for the assessment year 2010-11.
For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC
Respondent: served and no appearance
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.190 of 2020
dated 11.12.2019 made in I.T.A.No.3143/Chny/2018 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal' for
brevity) for the assessment year 2010-11.
2. The appeal was admitted on 24.7.2020 on the following
substantial questions of law :
“i. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in remitting the issue back to the file of
the Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in
the case of Kanhaiyal and Sons (HUF) in
ITA.No.1849/Chny/2014, Sunil Kumar Lalwani
and Aashesh Kumar Lalwani wherein the onus
has been shifted to the Revenue with a
direction that the Assessing Officer is to bring
on record the role of the assessee in promoting
the company and the relation of the assessee,
if any with that of the promoters and role of
inflating of prices, etc., which exercise had
already been done by the Assessing Officer ?
And
ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal
perverse especially when the decision of the
Tribunal is contrary to the time tested principle
that the person, who asserts a fact has to
discharge the initial burden cast upon him to
show that the said facts are true and only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.190 of 2020
thereafter the burden would shift to the
Department ?”
3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. Though the respondent
was served and their name printed in the cause list, none appears for
them.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant/Revenue submits that an identical issue has been considered
by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us (TSSJ) was a
party, in the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF]
[reported in (2020) 122 Taxmann.com 180] and the issue has
been answered in favour of the Revenue.
5. There is no quarrel over such proposition.
6. In the light of the said decision, the above tax case appeal is
allowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and
the substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the
Revenue.
01.4.2021
RS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.190 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.
TCA.No.190 of 2020
01.4.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
