Madras High Court
The Director Of Income Tax vs M/S.Ansaldo Energia Spa on 19 February, 2021
Tax Case No.398 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.398 of 2011
The Director of Income Tax,
(International Taxation), Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Ansaldo Energia SpA,
Via N.Lorenz 8,
16152 Genoa Italy,
C/o M/s.S.R.Batilboi & Co.,
TPL House, 3, Cenatoph Road,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench,
dated 11.03.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.1378/Mds/2010.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case No.398 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J)
This appeal filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated
11.03.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench,
Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1378/Mds/2010 for the
Assessment Year 2000-01. The appeal was admitted on the following
Substantial Question of Law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the
interest under Section 234B levied by the Assessing Officer on the
ground that interest ought to be levied only after reducing the
amount of income tax which would be deductible at source during
the financial year whereas the correct interpretation of Section
234B read with Section 209(1)(d) would be that when interest
under Section 234 B was levied after the close of the financial
year, the real shortfall after reducing the tax actually deducted at
source should be taken into consideration?”
2. We have heard Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, learned senior standing
counsel for the appellant/ Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned Counsel for the
respondent/assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case No.398 of 2011
3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial
Question 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.
4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee
that the assessee has already filed the requisite Form - 1 on 31.01.2021 under
Section 4 of the Act.
5. 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 the requisite Form - 1 and the Department
shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case No.398 of 2011
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 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.
6. With this observation, 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.]
Index : Yes/No 19.02.2021
Internet : Yes
va
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case No.398 of 2011
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
va
Tax Case Appeal No.398 of 2011
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
