The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Shreyans Badola
[Citation -2020-LL-1105-37]

Citation 2020-LL-1105-37
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Shreyans Badola
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/11/2020
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags initiation of proceedings • imposition of penalty • condonation of delay • designated authority • initial burden • declaration • vivad se vishwas scheme
Bot Summary: In terms of Section 3, where a declarant means a person, who files a declaration under Section 4 on or before the last date files a declaration to the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears notwithstanding anything contained in the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force, the amount payable by the declarant shall be determined in terms of Section 3(a-c) thereunder. The First Proviso to Section 3 states that in case, where an Appeal or Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition is filed by the Income Tax authority on any issue before the Appellate Forum, the amount payable shall be one-half of the amount in the table stipulated in Section 3 calculated on such issue, in such a manner as may be prescribed. The filing of the declaration is as per Section 4 of the Act and the particulars to be furnished are also mentioned in the Sub Sections of Section 4. Section 5 of the Act deals with the time and manner of the payment and Section 6 deals with Immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases, where the Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has already filed the declaration under Section 4 of the Act on 21.03.2020. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee.


T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant Versus Shri Shreyans Badola Aadinath Complex, 1st Floor 228 (Old No.124) NSC Bose Road Suite No.20, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001 PAN:AAJPB1266C .. Respondent Prayer:- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.3043/Chny/2018 dated 05.07.2019 relating to Assessment Year 2014-15. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing counsel For Respondent : Mrs.C.Rekha Kumari 1/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 JUDGMENT [Order of Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] This appeal has been filed by Revenue under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against order dated 05.07.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.3043/Chny/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. This appeal was admitted on 06.10.2020 on following Substantial Questions of Law: 1.Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in setting aside well reasoned order passed by Assessing officer for re- examination, especially when all material were considered by Assessing Officer while passing assessment order? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in remitting issue back to file of Assessing Officer by quoting decision in case of Kanhaiyal and Sons (HUF) in ITA.No.1849/Chny/2014 Sunil Kumar Lalwani and that Aashesh Kumar Lalwani wherein onus has been shifted to Revenue with direction that Assessing Officer is to bring on record role of Assessee in promoting Company and relation of Assessee, if any with that of promoters and 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 role of inflating of prices etc., which exercise had already been done by AO and SEBI? 3. Is not finding of Tribunal perverse especially when decision of Tribunal is contrary to time tested Principal that person, who asserts fact has to discharge initial burden cast upon him to show that said facts are true and only thereafter burden would shift to department? 2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for appellant/Revenue and Mrs.C.Rekha Kumari, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. Government of India enacted Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Act of Parliament received assent of President on 17th March 2020 and published in Gazette of India on 17th March 2020. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 4. In terms of said Act, assessee has been given option to put end to tax disputes, which may be pending at different levels either before First Appellate Authority or before Tribunal or before High Court or before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Under Section 2(j) disputed tax has been defined. In terms of Section 3, where declarant means person, who files declaration under Section 4 on or before last date files declaration to designated authority in accordance with provisions of Section 4 in respect of tax arrears, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Income Tax Act or any other law for time being in force, amount payable by declarant shall be determined in terms of Section 3(a-c) thereunder. 5. First Proviso to Section 3 states that in case, where Appeal or Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition is filed by Income Tax authority on any issue before Appellate Forum, amount payable shall be one-half of amount in table stipulated in Section 3 calculated on such issue, in such manner as may be prescribed. second proviso deals with cases, where matter is before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Dispute Resolution Panel. third proviso deals with cases, 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 where issue is pending before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. filing of declaration is as per Section 4 of Act and particulars to be furnished are also mentioned in Sub Sections of Section 4. Section 5 of Act deals with time and manner of payment and Section 6 deals with Immunity from initiation of proceedings in respect of offence and imposition of penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of Act deals with cases, where Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. 6. We are informed by learned counsel for respondent/assessee that assessee has already filed declaration under Section 4 of Act on 21.03.2020. 7. In light of fact that assessee has already availed benefit under Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At same time, safeguarding interest of assessee in event order to be passed by Department under Act is not in favour of assessee. Accordingly, Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on ground that assessee has already filed declaration and Department shall process application at earliest in accordance with 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 said Act and communicate decision to assessee at earliest. As observed, assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in event ultimate decision to be taken on declaration filed by assessee under Section 4 of said Act is not in favour of assessee. If such prayer is made, Registry shall entertain prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of appeal and on such request made by assessee by filing Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration, Registry shall place such petition before Division Bench for orders. 8. With this observation, Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with aforementioned liberty and Consequently, Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J) 05.11.2020 Kak Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' SMC Bench, Chennai. 7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. Kak T.C.A.No.346 of 2020 05.11.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Shreyans Badola
Report Error