Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd on 23 February, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1,
No.63, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore. ... Appellant
v.
M/s. Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd.,
C/o. Shri S. Sridhar,
Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate,
New No.14, Old NO.82, Flat No.5,
1st Avenue, Indira Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
PAN : AAD CS 0688 Q ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Bench, Chennai dated 29.03.2017 passed in ITA.No.3262/Mds/2016 for
the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
Asst. by Ms. K.G. Usha Rani
For Respondent : Mr.M. Kaushik
for Mr. S. Sridhar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J)
This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I..TA.No.3262/Mds/2016
for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
2. The appeal was admitted on 07.12.2017 on the following
Substantial Questions of Law:
“ (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in
deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) without
considering that the assessee filed the revised return of
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
income only after the survey action under section 133A
taken place in the business premises of the assessee? and
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deleting the
penalty relying on the earlier decision (2010) of the
Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products v.
CIT when latter (2013) judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of MAK Data P. Ltd., v. CIT had clearly held that
'voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from
mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c()?"
.3. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant and M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the
respondent.
4. 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
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that
the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the
respondent-assessee had already been issued with Form – 3 on
16.12.2020.
6. Since the respondent-assessee had been issued with Form 3,
nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the appeal
stands disposed of. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
23.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “C” Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
Tax Case Appeal No.572 of 2017
23.02.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
