Madras High Court
Mr.Murugesan Chellappa vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 February, 2021
TCA.No.85 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.85 of 2021
Mr.Murugesan Chellappa ...Appellant
Vs
The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward - 3(4),
Chennai - 34. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 16.09.2019 made in ITA.No.1673/Chny/2018 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year
2013-14.
For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.85 of 2021
16.09.2019 made in ITA.No.1673/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the
assessment year 2013-14.
2. The appellant/assessee has raised the following substantial
questions of law for consideration:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right
in law in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to
claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 in respect of the shares held by him in separate
investment portfolios merely because the Accountant
had wrongly accounted the same as stock-in-trade
under the head "Current Assets" without appreciating
substance over form?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is
perverse in holding that there was prima facie
evidence to show that the shares were held as stock-in-
trade and purchase of the shares was debited to profit
& loss account?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.85 of 2021
in not appreciating that there was genuine mistake on
the part of the Accountant in reflecting the investment
in shares as stock-in-trade which could be the basis
for rejection of the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
3. We have heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/assessee.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee submits that the
appellant/assessee has already filed the declaration/undertaking under the
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 08.01.2021 and is awaiting orders to be
passed in Form No.3.
5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority
shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax
Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as
expeditiously as possible. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.85 of 2021
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 appropriate Division Bench for orders.
6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned
liberty and consequently, the substantial questions of law framed are left
open. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
23.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.85 of 2021
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai.
2. The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward - 3(4),
Chennai - 34.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.85 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
TCA.No.85 of 2021
23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
