Madras High Court
Tamilnadu Warehousing ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 4 July, 2022
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation Limited,
82, Anna Salai,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
[PAN: AAACT 2474Q] ... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 3 (1),
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench,
Chennai, dated 04.05.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.323/Mds/2016.
For Appellant : Ms.S.Sreelakshmi Valli
For Mr.G.Baskar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan
Standing Counsel
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee
challenging the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai ('the Tribunal', for brevity) in
I.T.A.No.323/mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009.
2.The above appeal was admitted on 22.12.2017 on the following
substantial questions of law :
“(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right
in law in upholding the reassessment even when the Assessing
Officer failed to pass a speaking order on the objections raised
by the appellant against reopening of assessment?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not
cancelling the reopening after four years from the end of the
assessment year, as there was no failure on the part of the
assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary
for assessment, due to which, any income chargeable to tax
has escaped assessment?
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the
provision for leave encashment is not an allowable
expenditure under provisions of Section 43B(f) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961? and
(iv) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right
in deciding the issue of allowability of provision for leave
encashment against the appellant, when the same issue had
been decided in favour of the appellant by the same Tribunal
in the appellant's own case for the assessment years 2005-06
and 2010-11?”
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for
the appellant filed a memo dated 29.10.2021, wherein, it is stated that the
appellant / assessee has already availed the benefit conferred under the Direct
Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and Form 3 has also been issued to them
and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication herein. Stating so, the
learned counsel sought permission of this court to withdraw this appeal.
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
4. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant / assessee, this tax appeal case is dismissed as withdrawn.
No costs.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
04.07.2022
rns
Internet : Yes.
Index : Yes / No.
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
To
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals – II),
Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 3 (1),
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai, “A” Bench.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
rns
Tax Case Appeal No.732 of 2017
04.07.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
