Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Murasoli Maran Family Trust on 17 August, 2022
T.C.A.No.425 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.425 of 2018
AND
C.M.P.No.9611 of 2018
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Murasoli Maran Family Trust
No.4, II Avenue, Boat Club Road
R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028
PAN : AAA TM0863H .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2664/Mds/2016.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms.N.Sneha
for Mr.J.Ravindran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
T.C.A.No.425 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in
question the correctness of the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2664/Mds/2016,
relating to the assessment year 2006-07, by raising the following substantial
questions of law :
“1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the
benefit u/s.161 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be allowed
especially when the Trust has supposedly ceased to exists?
2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when
the Trust is to be assessed as AOP at the maximum marginal
rate as provided u/s.167 of the Income Tax Act when only one
Trustee was available and two beneficiaries who attended the
meeting had passed a resolution which is invalid based on which
no benefits can be granted?
3. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is
proper by holding that 3 trustees were present on the date of
passing of the resolution which fact is factually incorrect and
wrong and is contrary to the covenants in the Trust Deed which
clearly indicated that the 2 trustees who were on record alone
were capable of passing valid resolutions and since only one
trustee attended the meeting when the resolutions were passed
they could not acted upon and therefore were invalid?”
2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.425 of 2018
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 30.10.2021. The
learned counsel has also filed Form-5 dated 30.10.2021 to that effect.
3. 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.
4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that
nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission so
made by the learned counsel on either side, this Tax Case Appeal stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
17.08.2022
gya
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.425 of 2018
gya
To
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai
2.The Income Tax Officer
Non-Corporate Ward 1(3)
Chennai 600 034
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2
Chennai
4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'B' Bench, Chennai Tax Case Appeal No.425 of 2018
17.08.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
