Madras High Court
A. Muralidharan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2022
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
A. Muralidharan
No.699, Mettur Main Road,
Bhavani,
Erode District 638 301 ... Appellant in all appeals
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Erode ... Respondent in all appeals
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “D”
Bench, dated 4.10.2011 passed in respective I.T.A.Nos.185, 186,189 &
1294/Mds/2011 for the respective Assessment Years 2005-06, 2007-08,
2007-08, 2006-07.
For Appellant : M/s.J.Sree Vidya
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Standing counsel
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / Assessee
challenging the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench ('the Tribunal', for brevity) respective
I.T.A.Nos.185, 186,189 & 1294/Mds/2011 relating to respective Assessment
Years 2005-06, 2007-08, 2007-08, 2006-07.
2.The above appeals were admitted on 7.12.2011 on the following
substantial questions of law :
TCA.No.607 of 2011:-
“1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer
could make an addition on the basis of an impounded receipt,
without any independent corroboration of the payment, in view
of denial of receipt of money by the parties concerned?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition when the
impounded receipts were never acted upon, but made out only
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
for obtaining a bank loan, without any other evidence to the
contrary?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between
the sale price mentioned in the agreement and in the sale deed
is to be taken as unaccounted, even though the agreement was
in respect of land and building, and the sale deed was in
respect of land alone, which was confirmed by the parties to
the transaction?
4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of Rs.9 lakhs
based on the agreement for sale, without verifying either the
bank from which the loan was taken or the buyer of the
property?”
TCA.No.608 of 2011:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Appellate Tribunal was right in remitting the matter
to the file of the Assessing Officer when the grounds of appeal
filed by the Revenue was only on the ground that percentage of
completion method as recognised by AS 11 ought to be
followed in preference to project completion method and there
were no factual disputes?
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
TCA.No.609 of 2011:-
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating the
promissory note impounded during the survey as conclusive
evidence, when the assessee and the borrower had both stated
in their respective sworn statements that only an amount of
Rs.42 lakhs was received as loan? And
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer
could make an addition on the basis of an impounded receipt
without any independent corroboration of the payment and
without examining the bank, contrary to the sworn statement
that the document was created only for obtaining loan form
the bank?
TCA.No.610 of 2011:-
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the
additions made on the advance received towards construction
work, when the assessee is following a completed contract
method of accounting?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the estimation
of profits without considering the fact that the receipts
pertained to incomplete contracts and the assessee is following
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
the completed contract method of accounting?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case the Appellate Tribunal was right in merely confirming the
CIT (A)'s order ignoring the fact that the materials gathered
during the survey cannon be treated as conclusive evidence
without examining the parties to the transaction?
(iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of CIT(A)
without adverting to the grounds raised by the appellant or
applying its mind to the issue?
3.When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that during the
pendency of these tax case appeals, the assessee has filed the requisite Forms
1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020,
which were accepted and Form 3 were issued to the assessee on 24.03.2021
by the Income Tax Department. The learned counsel has also filed a common
memo to that effect.
4.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant / assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondent / Revenue.
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
5.This court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side, as per which, the assessee has already availed the benefit
conferred under the beneficial legislation viz., the Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Act, 2020, enacted for resolution of disputed tax and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto, which came into force with effect
from 17.03.2020; and the declarations submitted by the assessee were also
accepted and Form 3 was also issued to them by the Income Tax Department.
In view of such development, it is unnecessary for this court to decide the
substantial questions of law arisen in these tax case appeals.
6.Therefore, recording the submissions so made by the learned counsel
on either side, these appeals stand disposed of, directing the department to
process the application in accordance with the Act and communicate the
decision to the assessee at the earliest. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
08.08.2022
msr
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
To
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Erode
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “D” Bench, Chennai.
3.The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-II (2), Erode-1.
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
Tax Case Appeal Nos.607 to 610 of 2011
08.08.2022
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
