Madras High Court
M/S.Gee Gee Holdings P. Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer on 7 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
M/s.Gee Gee Holdings P. Ltd.,
Old No.31, New No.6,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai 9th Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Company Ward – II (1),
Chennai. ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B"
Bench, dated 12.01.2018 passed in M.P.No.153/Mds/2017
(I.T.A.No.775/Chny/2013) for the assessment year 2008-09.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Kaushik
for Mr.S.Sridhar
For Respondent : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
The appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against the order dated
12.01.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench,
Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in M.P.No.153/Mds/2017
(I.T.A.No.775/Chny/2013) for the assessment year 2008-09.
2.The appellant has raised the following Substantial Questions of
Law in the grounds of appeal:
“1)Whether the provisions of Section 254(2) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 envisage the power for the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal to recall their earlier order despite
the power vested therein is limited to correcting the mistake
apparent from record?
2)Whether the recall of the earlier order dated
26.05.2016 in the impugned order dated 12.01.2018 on the
presumption of non-consideration of two issues which
according to the appellant established perversity in view of
the absence of specific grounds of appeal in the statutory
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
Form No.36 filed by the Revenue before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal?
3)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in
entertaining the issue of assessment of Rs.75,00,000/-
despite the absence of ground of appeal forming part of the
statutory Form No.36 filed by the Revenue and accepted by
the departmental representative during the course of the
hearing of the appeal on 01.10.2019 in view of the
challenge of the recall order dated 12.01.2018 in the
present appeal?
4)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was within its
jurisdiction in adjudicating an issue on merits despite an
endorsement given by the Departmental representative for
not raising a ground on an issue in the capacity of the
appellant before them?
5)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in
accepting the stand of the respondent/the Assessing Officer
in bringing to tax Rs.75,00,000/- being the part of the
arbitration award amount which amount was arising from
the arbitration award dated 08.04.2006 proving the
sterilisation of source of income while fortifying the stand
of the appellant Company on treating such sum as capital
receipt in view of the challenge of the recall order dated
12.01.2018 in the present appeal?
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
6)Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in
holding that the income of Rs.75,00,000/- had accrued
during the assessment year under consideration despite the
accepted position of the arbitration award dated 08.04.2006
falling within the assessment year 2007-08 while
overlooking law declared consistently by the Supreme
Court on the principles of accrual accounting in view of the
challenge of the recall order dated 12.01.2018 in the
present appeal?
7) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in
confirming the assessment of notional interest as part of the
taxable total income pertaining to the belated receipt of
arbitration award amount in defying the principles of real
income theory in view of the challenge of the recall order
dated 12.01.2018 in the present appeal?”
3.We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee and Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, 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
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
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
02.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6.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.] [R.H., J.]
Index : Yes/No 07.04.2021
Internet : Yes
va
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
va
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench
2.The Income Tax Officer,
Company Ward – II (1),
Chennai.
Tax Case Appeal No.240 of 2021
07.04.2021
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
