Madras High Court
M/S.Questnet Enterprises India vs The Deputy Commissioner Of on 16 February, 2021
TCA.Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.2.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
M/s.Questnet Enterprises India
P. Ltd., Chennai-31 ...Appellant
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2),
Chennai-34 ...Respondent
APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the orders respectively (i) dated 22.3.2017 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.
3258/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13; and (ii) dated
06.7.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench,
Chennai made in MP.No.261/Chny/2017 in I.T.A.No.3258/Chny/2016
for the assessment year 2012-13.
For Appellant: Mr.A.S.Sriraman
For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
These appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging
the orders respectively (i) dated 22.3.2017 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) made
in I.T.A.No. 3258/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13; and
(ii) dated 06.7.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A'
Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) made in MP.No. 261/Chny/
2017 in I.T.A.No.3258/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The assessee has filed these appeals by raising the following
substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether the provisions of Section
14A of the Act could be applied in the absence
of requisite satisfaction on the part of the
respondent/the Assessing Officer on the
incurring of expenses for earning tax free
income having regard to the audited financial
statements for the assessment year concerned
mechanically for quantifying notional expenses
as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
which is the second stage/computation part?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is
correct in overlooking the law declared by the
Apex Court though rendered subsequently for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
recording requisite satisfaction by the
respondent/the Assessing Officer for incurring
expenses for earning tax free income to go
forward in quantifying notional expenses as
per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for
making addition u/s 14A of the Act in the
proceedings initiated by the Appellant u/s
254(2) of the Act? and
3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is
correct in not considering the issues raised on
the quantification of notional expenses as per
Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for
making addition u/s 14A of the Act, thereby
establishing the gross violation of the
principles of legitimate expectation?”
3. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue.
4. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the
assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking in the respective
cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on
28.1.2021 in Form No.3.
5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee is given
liberty to restore these appeals in the event the ultimate decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
taken in the respective cases on the declaration filed by the assessee
under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such
a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without
insisting upon any petition to be filed for condonation of delay in
restoration of the appeals and on such request made by the assessee
by filing miscellaneous petitions for restoration, the Registry shall place
such petitions before the appropriate Division Bench for orders.
6. The tax case appeals stand disposed of with the
aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial questions of law
raised are left open. No costs.
16.2.2021
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2),
Chennai-34
TCA.Nos.118 & 119 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
