Madras High Court
K.R.Appavoo vs Commissioner Of Income - Tax on 12 August, 2022
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2010
K.R.Appavoo ... Appellant in all
TCAs
Versus
Commissioner of Income - tax,
Salem. ... Respondent in all
TCAs
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.2208 and 2209/Mds/2003,
I.T.A.Nos.86, 87 and 798/Mds/2004.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Vasudevan in all TCAs
For Respondent : Mr.Swaminathan
Senior Standing Counsel
M/s.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel in all TCAs
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / assessee,
challenging the common order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, relating to the assessment years
1997-98 and 1998-99.
2.By order dated 08.03.2020, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeals on the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the
reopening of assessment by issue of notice under section 148
during the pendency of regular assessment proceedings,
when there cannot be any income escaping assessment and
hence the notice and the consequent assessment are
untenable in law?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in
upholding the reopening of assessment when the officer has
not traveled beyond the original return and documents filed
by the assessee and hence constitutes only a change of
opinion not warranting the issue of notice for reopening the
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
assessment?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding
the order of reassessment under section 147 considering
other issues on which no reason have been recorded as
income escaping assessment and hence the entire order of
reassessment stands vitiated and needs to be annulled?
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the
order of the CIT(A) and holding that the assessee is not
entitled to set off the share of lass from AOP in the individual
assessment?
(v) Whether in view of the specific provisions of
sections 66, 67A and 86 of the Act, the claim of the assessee
for set off of share of loss from AOP needs to be allowed as
in accordance with law?
(vi) Whether the Tribunal ought to have followed the
Madras High Court decision in 109 ITR 258 as applicable
even after the amendment to the provisions of the Act?
(vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in denying the
exemption under section 54B of the Act?
3. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee submitted that during the
pendency of these tax case appeals, 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 24.11.2021.
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.
5. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion
that nothing survives for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the
submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, these Tax Case
Appeals stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
12.08.2022
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'D' Bench,
2. The Commissioner of Income - tax,
Salem.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle - II, Salem
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Salem.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
T.C.A.Nos.218, 219, 221, 222 and 224 of 2010
12.08.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
