Madras High Court
Smt.Jayanthi Balaji vs The Income Tax Officer on 2 September, 2021
TCA.No.443 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.9.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Tax Case Appeal No.443 of 2021
Smt.Jayanthi Balaji ...Appellant
Vs
The Income Tax Officer,
Business Ward X(2), Chennai. ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No. 1196/Mds/2011 for the
assessment year 2007-08.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by
Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC
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.443 of 2021
dated 13.11.2017 made in I.T.A.No.1196/Mds/2011 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for
brevity) for the assessment year 2007-08.
2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following
substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal having held that the lands belonging
to the Appellant are 'agricultural lands' was
right in holding that the extinguishment of
farming rights over the said lands tantamount
to a 'commercial right'? and
2. Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in holding that the
additional compensation received by the
Appellant for foregoing their 'farming rights'
over agricultural land is to be treated as
income under the head 'capital gains'?”
3. We have heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel
accepting notice for the respondent/Revenue.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.443 of 2021
the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad
Se Vishwas Scheme on 27.1.2021 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 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. Consequently, the substantial questions of law
raised are left open. No costs.
02.9.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.443 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J
mka
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai.
2.The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward X(2), Chennai.
TCA.No.443 of 2021
02.9.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
