Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of ... vs M/S.Lifecell International Pvt. ... on 18 January, 2021
TCA.No.35 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.35 of 2021
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle - 4(1),
Chennai - 34. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd,
No.26, Vandalur,
Kelambakkam Main Road,
Keelakottayur Village,
Chennai - 18.
PAN: AAECA 7997B ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 12.06.2017 made in ITA.No.3427/MDS/2016 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment year
2012-13.
For Appellant: Mr.R.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Narayanan
for Mr.N.V.Balaji
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.35 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,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 12.06.2017 made in ITA.No.3427/MDS/2016 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity)
for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of
law for consideration:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct
in holding that the storage fees collected by the
assessee cannot be treated as income in the year
of receipt i.e. in the AY 2012-13
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct
in holding that out of the storage fees collected
during the year only a part is accrued as income
of the year although there was no liability to
refund any part of such receipt as per the
agreement?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.35 of 2021
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case an din law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in
deleting the addition contrary to the provisions of
section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act?”
3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior
Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and
Mr.N.V.Narayanan, appearing for Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the
respondent/assessee.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that
the respondent/assessee has already filed the declaration/undertaking under
the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.35 of 2021
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 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.)
18.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.35 of 2021
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'B' Bench.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle - 4(1),
Chennai - 34.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.35 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
TCA.No.35 of 2021
18.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
