Madras High Court
Mr. Bangaru Dhandapani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 2 February, 2021
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.871 of 2009
Mr. Bangaru Dhandapani ... Appellant
v.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Business Circle- I,
Chennai. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
Benches, Chennai, dated 28.05.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.693/Mds/2007 for
the assessment year 2003-04.
For Appellant : Mr. M. Kaushik
For Respondent : Ms. R. Hemalatha
Standing Counsel
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was 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
28.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
Benches, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.693/Mds/2007
for the assessment year 2003-04.
2. The appeal was admitted on 19.01.2010 on the following
Substantial Questions of Law:
" (i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming
the penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Act even
though the transactions under scrutiny were established and
accepted as genuine while overlooking the purpose of the
provisions in Section 269 SS of the Act?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding
the correctness of levy of penalty under Section 271D of
the Act even though the binding decisions cited before them
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
were distinguished without reasons while overlooking the
provisions in section 273B of the Act?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in
affirming the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act
even though the transactions under scrutiny were not in the
nature of loan or deposit as mentioned and envisaged in
Section 269 SS of the Act while in the process ignoring the
Memorandum of understanding and lease agreement
entered which documentary evidences demonstrated and
fortified the nature of the transactions as claimed by the
appellant?"
3. We have heard Mr. M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. R. Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
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 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
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
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 has already filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 on
09.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act.
6. . In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the
benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this
appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee
in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not
in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands
disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed requisite
Forms 1 and 2 and the Department shall process the application at the
earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to
the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to
restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the
declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall
entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for
condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made
by the assessee by filing a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, the
Registry shall place such petition before the Division Bench for orders.
7. With these observations, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of
with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial
Questions of Law are left open. No costs.
(M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.)
02.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai Benches, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Business Circle- I,
Chennai.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.871 of 2009
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
Tax Case Appeal No.871 of 2009
02.02.2021
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
