Madras High Court
M/S.Jenneys Residency Private ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of on 19 January, 2021
TCA.No.41 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.1.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.41 of 2021
M/s.Jenneys Residency Private Ltd.,
Chennai-17 ...Appellant
Vs
The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2),
Chennai-34 ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the order dated 05.5.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1235/Mds/2016
for the assessment year 2006-07.
For Appellant: Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar
For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC
Judgment was 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.41 of 2021
dated 05.5.2017 made in I.T.A.No.1235/Mds/2016 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for
brevity) for the assessment year 2006-07.
2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following
substantial questions of law :
“i. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding
the order of the Assessing Officer passed
under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ?
ii. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the order of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in
law and on facts in not appreciating the
evidence and materials filed before the
Tribunal to demonstrate that the very basis of
quantum assessment and the order in
quantum appeal was on wrong proposition by
treating the excess payment by the appellant
as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and the same cannot form an
automatic basis for levy of penalty under
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,
1961? and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.41 of 2021
iii. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal is duty bound to consider
the materials filed by the appellant to
demonstrate the very basis of addition in the
quantum proceedings was on a wrong
proposition since penalty proceedings under
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
stands independent from that of the quantum
proceedings?”
3. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, 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 under the Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 07.12.2020 in Form No.3.
5. In the light of the subsequent event, the assessee is given
liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.41 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
RS
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. Consequently, the substantial questions of law
raised are left open. No costs.
19.1.2021
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2),
Chennai-34
TCA.No.41 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
