Madras High Court
G. Muralidharan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 8 January, 2021
Tax Case No.495 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.495 of 2017
G. Muralidharan ... Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Pondicherry),
Chennai. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C'
Bench, Chennai, dated 27.04.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1197/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr. N.V. Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.T.R. Senthil Kumar
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.495 of 2017
(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
27.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C'
Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1197/Mds/2015.
for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following
Substantial Question of Law for consideration:
" Whether in fact and the circumstances of the case, the
tribunal was right in holding that penalty levied by the
Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the the Income
Tax Act, is valid. ?"
2.. We have heard Mr. N.V. Balaji, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent/Revenue.
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
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.495 of 2017
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 23.10.2020 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 assessee is given liberty to restore this
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.495 of 2017
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.)
08.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Pondicherry),
Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case No.495 of 2017
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
Tax Case Appeal No.495 of 2017
08.01.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
