Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Mangal Tech Park Pvt. Ltd on 1 August, 2022
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai. ...
Appellant
Versus
M/s. Mangal Tech Park Pvt. Ltd.,
Spencer Plaza,
No.769, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
PAN: AAE CM 6101 F ...
Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1439/Mds/2014.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009.
2.By order dated 06.04.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal
against the order of CIT (A), which was dismissed, since
assessee gave in writing that it is not pressing the appeal
without noting that only an aggrieved assessee can file appeal
under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act and further
without taking cognizance of the fact that the very same
Director of assessee company filed letter before CIT (A) and
filed the present appeal before ITAT?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, Tribunal was right and justified in deleting the
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
addition under section 35AC after expiry of six year, for cross
examining the witness when the outcome of the enquiry was
put to Shri Balasubramaniam, Director of assessee company
in the year 2010 itself as evident from the assessment order,
and the assessee neither denied such finding nor asked for
cross-examining such persons?"
3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent / assessee submitted that during the pendency of
this tax case appeal, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the
Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations,
which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax
arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 09.04.2021.
The learned counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 09.04.2021 to that effect.
4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the appellant/ Revenue.
5.In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission
so made by the learned counsel on either side, the Tax Case Appeal stands
disposed of. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
01.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'B' Bench,
2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,
Company Circle IV(1), Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2017
01.08.2022
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
