Madras High Court
B.K.Muralikrishna vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 9 on 20 January, 2021
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.580 of 2017
B.K.Muralikrishna ... Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax 9,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench,
dated 22.04.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1429/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi
for Mr.N.V.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar,
Standing Counsel
Page 1/6
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J)
This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 22.04.2016
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, Chennai
('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1429/Mds/2015 for the Assessment
Year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following Substantial Question of
Law for consideration:
“ 1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the
additions made by the assessing officer in respect of purported
excess stock?
2)Whether based on material before it, the Tribunal could
have come to the conclusion that at the time of there was excess
stock available, that the same was correctly valued and is to be
assessed as income of the appellant?
3)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the
addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs in respect of property for purchase of
property at Madhavaram?
4)Is the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant paid on
money of Rs.16.50 lakhs for purchasing property at Madhavaram
not perverse?
Page 2/6
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
5)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that
addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as
money payment for purchase of land at Kannigai Village?
6)Is the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant paid on
money of Rs.16.50 lakhs for purchasing land for his factory at
Kannigai Village not pervers?
7)Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the
additions made by the Assessing Officer merely based on the
sworn statement made by the assessee during survey?
8)Whether under facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in remitting the issue of disallowance under
Section 40A(3) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer for
fresh consideration?
9)Is the finding of the Tribunal that the facts do not show
any compelling business reasons or exigencies for the payment of
expenditure in cash not perverse?”
2. We have heard Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/
Revenue.
3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial
Page 3/6
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
Questions 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 appellant/assessee that
the assessee has already filed the declaration on 07.12.2020 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 a declaration and the Department shall
process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and
communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, the
Page 4/6
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
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.]
20.01.2021
Index : Yes/No (1/2)
Internet : Yes
va
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “D” Bench
2.Commissioner of Income Tax 9,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.
Page 5/6
Tax Case No.580 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
va
Tax Case Appeal No.580 of 2017
(1/2)
20.01.2021
Page 6/6
